


Hs&i 



®wffl 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

""BT 

Shelf... 



I 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



MM 31 ,88 * 



Children in Christ ; 

OR, 

The Relitioi of Children 



THE ^.TOlsTE^dZEnSTT, 

The Ground of Their Eight to Christian 
Baptism. 



GS-. H. HAYES, D. D., 

I ( 

OF THE LOUISVILLE CONFERENCE. 



"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
for of such is the kingdom of God." — Mark x. 14. 



JT1 

CINCINNATI: 

Elm Street Printing Company, Nos. 176 and 178 Elm Street. 
1884. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, by 

Gr, H. HAYES, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C. 






To all Lovers of Truth 

AND 

The Children, 

This Little Volume is Respect- 
fully Dedicated. 



INTRODUCTION. 



I examined the manuscript of this book with care. I 
believe it to be the best presentation of the subject that I 
have ever seen. The author is a polemic of acknowledged 
ability, and writes con-amore. 

I commend this volume to all lovers of truth. Those 
who believe in infant baptism will have their faith 
strengthened ; those who have doubts on the subject will 
have those doubts removed ; and those who are opposed 
to infant baptism will find arguments here that they can 
not answer. 

May the author and his readers so love and practice 
the truth, as it is in Jesus, that they may all meet in the 
home prepared for the righteous. 

G. B. OVEKTON. 

Corydon, Ky., February 12, 1884. 

(iv) 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Introduction, iv 

CHAPTER I. 
The Question Stated, ...... 7 

CHAPTER II. 
The Fall and Recovery, 21 

CHAPTER III. 
The Unity of the Scriptures, .... 33 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Promise and Covenant, 46 

CHAPTER V. 
Israel a Type of the Church, . . .78 

CHAPTER VI. 
Prophecy, 98 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Church— When Organized? ... 113 

(v) 



vi Contents. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PAGE. 

The Covenant — When and Where Given ? . • 131 

CHAPTER IX. 
The Commission, . . . . . 150 

CHAPTER X. 
Apostolic Practice, 170 

CHAPTER XI. 
Thy Kingdom Come, .'..... 181 

CHAPTER XII. 
Parental Responsibility, 201 






CHILDRM W CHRIST; 



The Relation of Children to the Atonement, 

the Ground of their Eight to 

Christian Baptism. 



CHAPTER I. 

the question stated. 

Proposition : The right of infants to member- 
ship in the Church of God, and to 
Christian Baptism, grows out of, and 
is inseparable from, the Atonement of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. 
"The wicked is driven away in his wick- 
edness: but the righteous hath hope in his 
death." (Prov. xiv. 32.) This text presents 
us with two distinct and separate classes, 
with distinct and widely different destinies. 
These two classes are all that are recog- 
nized in the Bible. There is no neutral 
(7) 



8 Children in Christ. 

ground — no third party. They are almost 
at an infinite remove, the one from the 
other. However nearly they may seem to 
approximate, however hard it may be, 
sometimes, for man to discover the line of 
separation, they are as wide apart as sin 
from holiness, as darkness from light, as 
bondage from liberty, as death from life, 
and are destined to be as far apart as hell 
from heaven. These two classes include 
the whole of the human family. Every 
human being belongs either to the one or 
the other, and is destined to dwell in 
heaven or hell. We are either in favor 
with God, or we are not. If in favor with 
God, we are accounted among the right- 
eous; if not, we are among the wicked. 
If we die in his favor, we will be admitted 
into heaven; if not, we will be "driven 
away in our wickedness" — driven down to 
hell! "for there is no work, nor device, nor 
knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, 
whither thou goest." These are facts ad- 
mitted by all. Let them, therefore, be 
firmly fixed and kept in the mind of the 
reader, for we will have use for them as we 



The Question Stated. 9 

proceed. 1. There are but two classes. 2. 
These two classes embrace the whole race of 
man. Now, let us inquire, whence origi- 
nated the two classes? why more than one? 
Did they originate in a separate creation? 
Did God, originally, create two distinct 
classes, the wicked and the righteous? To 
ask such a question, is to answer it. For, 
however much men may differ about other 
things, none who recognize the Bible as a 
revelation from God, and have any respect 
for its teachings (and we write for none 
other), will dare assume such a position. 
We will not, therefore, insult the common- 
sense of the reader by arguing against such 
absurdities; but accept the simple, plain 
Bible history of our origin, and the decla- 
ration of the apostle Paul that God " hath 
made of one blood all nations of men for 
to dwell on all the face of the earth.'' 

Not only were there not two classes in 
the original creation, but there were not 
even two individuals! Absolutely, God 
created but one individual, viz: Adam. He 
did not create Eve, but took her out of 
Adam's side — made her out of one of 



10 Children in Christ 

Adam's ribs. She was created, it is true, 
but only in the same sense that all men 
since Adam were created, in Adam. In 
this we see the absolute oneness of human 
nature. ISo doubt, God could have created 
Eve independently of Adam, and made 
them just alike, as to nature; but in that 
case, they would not have been one nature, 
but two, however much alike. This one- 
ness of nature is clearly recognized and set 
forth in the account of man's creation, as 
given in Genesis. In the first chapter, 
after speaking of the creation of everything 
else, the inspired historian tells us: "And 
God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness; and let them have do- 
minion. * * * So God created man in his 
own image : in the image of God created he 
him; male and female created he them." 
And in the second chapter, verse 7, "And 
the Lord God formed man of the dust of 
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life (lives) and man became a 
living soul. ,, Here is the account, in brief, 
of man's creation. 

Afterward, when "the Lord^God caused 



The Question Stated. 11 

a deep sleep to fall upon Adam/' and took 
one of his ribs and made the woman, and 
brought her unto the man, "Adam said, 
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of 
my flesh; she shall be called Woman, be- 
cause she was taken out of man. v If she 
had not been created in Adam, she could 
not have been " taken out of" him. The 
two classes, then, are not to be accounted 
for in a separate creation of each; for there 
w T as but one, and that one bore the image 
and likeness of God. Of course the indi- 
viduals composing that class were right- 
eous. But they did not remain so, for in 
tracing their history, we find that man sin- 
ned and forfeited the favor of God. 

We inquire, then, did the two classes 
originate in the fall of man? Did a part 
fall, and a part remain holy, or righteous? 
To this there is, there can be, but one an- 
swer; all fell — man apostatized, and human 
nature became corrupt. Not a part only, 
but the whole of that nature. Adam and 
Eve both sinned; and as they each pos- 
sessed the whole of human nature, and 
were the only representatives of their kind, 



12 Children in Christ. 

there were none left that did not fall. So, 
then, there was no division in the fall, no 
two classes formed yet. Human nature re- 
tained its oneness in the fall; and as all 
who bore that nature fell, we have but one 
class still, though changed in its relation to 
God. Before all were righteous; now all 
are wicked. 

Continuing our search for the origin of 
the two classes, we next inquire, did they 
originate in a partial or limited atonement? 
Did God redeem, and provide for the salva- 
tion of, a part of the fallen race, and con- 
sign, by an arbitrary and irrevocable decree, 
the rest to everlasting ruin; and that with- 
out the possibility of escape? Such a sup- 
position is not only repugnant to the better 
feelings of our nature, but is contrary to 
the plain teachings of the Word of God, is 
opposed to the very philosophy of the plan 
of salvation, impugns the character of 
God, and destroys not only the distinction 
between virtue and vice, but the possibility 
of the existence of either. The truth is, it 
is impossible in the very nature of things 
for God to redeem a part of the human 



The Question Stated. 13 

family, and not all; for to do so would be 
to destroy the oneness of human nature, or 
to divide Christ. 

We have seen that human nature is a 
unit. To be a human being, then, is to 
possess that nature — not a part only, but 
all of it. To possess only a part, would be 
to be partly human. Every human being, 
to be such, must possess the whole of human 
nature. It is because we possess that nature 
that we are interested in the atonement. 
The same nature that sinned, was re- 
deemed; and redeemed by the atoning sac- 
rifice of the very nature that sinned. The 
law — justice — had no claim upon, no de- 
mands to make of, any other. Man had 
transgressed, and man must suffer the pen- 
alty. Here was a problem; who could 
solve it? God's law had been broken; 
divine justice demanded the punishment 
of the guilty culprit, and divine mercy 
compassionated and longed to acquit the 
prisoner and restore him to life and liberty. 
What could be done ? Only infinite wisdom 
could tell. Only He who created man could 
redeem him. How was it done ? Not by 



14 Children in Christ. 

the creation of a substitute; that would not 
do. Justice would not, could not, accept 
such a sacrifice. Another man would not 
do, unless he possessed the same nature ; it 
was not enough that it be like it, it must be 
the same nature. To be the same, it must 
be of it — in some way generated by it. To 
be generated in the usual, natural way 
would not do; for then the effects of sin 
would be entailed, and death would be the 
natural and necessary result, and could not 
be endured for another. To die for another, 
the victim must be one on whom death has 
no claim, and upon whom, on his own ac- 
count, death could never come. Here was 
the difficulty: He who would die for and 
redeem man, must be of the same nature — 
must be man, and yet be free from sin and 
its effects. In the miraculous conception 
and birth of Jesus, the case is met. The 
divine paternity and the human maternity 
combine to give to the world a perfect man, 
free from sin — without " spot, or wrinkle, or 
any such thing.'* He was "made of a 
woman, made under the law, to redeem 
them that were under the law, that we 



The Question Stated. 15 

might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. 
iv. 4.) 

Human nature being a unit, and being 
represented entire in Adam, in him fell 
and was brought under the curse of the 
law; and being under the curse of the law, 
must suffer the penalty due to its trans- 
gression, unless a remedy be provided. 
Law is inexorable in its demands, exacting 
the full measure of punishment due for its 
transgression, and of all who have trans- 
gressed. Hence the necessity, in redeem- 
ing man, that man should suffer, and that 
so much of man — the nature of man — as 
was involved in the sin, should also be in- 
volved in the suffering due to that sin. If, 
therefore, Jesus were not man, a perfect 
man, possessing the whole of man's nature, 
he could not redeem man, because unable 
to meet the demands of the law upon him. 
On the other hand, being perfect man, pos- 
sessed of the whole of man's nature, in re- 
deeming one, he of necessity redeems all 
who bear that nature. Law can no more 
go beyond exact justice, than it can fail of 
reaching it. Therefore, if the whole of 



16 Children in Christ. 

human nature suffered once, in the person 
of Jesus Christ, the law has no further 
claim upon it; and to inflict punishment 
upon it, or upon any part of it, again, 
would be as much to dishonor the law as 
to have failed to inflict the merited punish- 
ment at all. In either case, the law, failing 
to accomplish the end for which it was de- 
signed, would be a nullity. Unless, then, 
Jesus Christ was less a representative than 
Adam, it is impossible to limit the atone- 
ment to a part — great or small — of the 
human family. Indeed, if limited at all, if 
must be limited as to all, that is, limited in 
its nature, its sufficiency as a remedy for 
sin, and not as to the number saved; for 
what w T ill cover one, of necessity covers all, 
with equal sufficiency. In other words, if 
it is possible for a single descendant of 
Adam to be lost, without actual personal 
transgression, it is possible for all to be lost 
without personal sin; and then it follows, 
either that the atonement made by Jesus 
Christ was insufficient; or that the law 
may demand punishment twice for the 
same offense; or that God may arbitrarily 



The Question Stated. 17 

punish his innocent creatures, without 
regard to law or justice! Upon what 
ground, then, could we base infant salva- 
tion, so as to reach, with any certainty, the 
conclusion that all, or any, dying in in- 
fancy, are saved? 

We do not say, for w r e do not believe, 
that, in making atonement for man, Jesus 
Christ suffered the full amount and extent 
of punishment due to the sins of all men, 
so that all the punishment that would be 
endured by the sinner was borne by him; 
for in that case universal, unconditional 
salvation would be the result. But we do 
say that the unity of human nature is such, 
that whatever was necessary to atone for 
one human being, was equally and necessa- 
rily sufficient for the whole of that nature, 
however numerous the individuals who 
bear it; and that, therefore, all who were 
affected by the fall of Adam, in which they 
could have no personal responsiblity, were 
to the same extent, and unconditionally, 
affected by the atoning death of Jesus 
Christ. If, therefore, all fell in Adam, all 

are redeemed in Christ. The nature that 

2 



18 Children in Christ. 

was alienated from God in Adam, was rec- 
onciled to him in Christ: " God was in 
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 
" Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted 
death for every man." In him we " behold 
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin 
of the world." "He gave himself a ransom 
for all. " As God is one, and human nature 
one; and as Jesus Christ was "made of a 
woman, made under the law, that he might 
redeem them that are under the law," and 
all bearing that nature were under the law; 
and as he took upon him the seed of 
Abraham — the whole nature of man — and 
"in him dwelt the fullness of the God-head, 
bodily; it follows, of necessity, that all 
were redeemed, absolutely and uncondition- 
ally redeemed. 

The two classes, then, did not originate 
in a partial or limited atonement. The 
oneness of human nature — made one in cre- 
ation — was not destroyed by the fall. It 
was assumed, as a whole, by Jesus Christ, 
and wholly redeemed by the atoning sacrifice 
of himself; so that, in virtue of his death, 
every descendant of Adam stands, until per- 



The Question Stated. 19 

sonal sin is committed, in a saved relation 
to God; and that unconditionally \ Where, 
then, shall we look for the origin of the two 
classes ? Evidently, to the point of personal 
divergence from Christ; to the voluntary 
act of departure from him — actual, per- 
sonal transgression of the law, to sin. 
"You:* iniquities have separated between 
you and your God, and your sins have hid 
his face from you/' "We hazard nothing 
in saying that, in the very nature of the 
case, it is impossible for a single human 
being to be lost, without personal trans- 
gression. Nothing but sin can separate 
between a human soul and God. So far, 
then, from the doctrine of the impossibility 
of apostasy being true, it is impossible for 
any but apostates to be lost. Hell was made 
for apostates, and none other can ever enter 
there! But this by the way. 

Our object now is, to show the origin of 
the wicked, who constitute one of the two 
classes into which our race is divided and 
in which the whole race, every member of it, 
is embraced. God created but one. That 
one was not divided in the fall, but contin- 



20 Children in Christ. 

tied a unit y though changed in its relation 
to God. As one it was redeemed by Christ, 
and in him restored to the favor of God. 
And as none can be lost without sin, 
actual, personal transgression, we necessa- 
rily conclude that the other class (the 
wicked) is formed by the sins of those who, 
as individuals, voluntarily depart from 
Christ. All who sin are classed with the 
wicked, and are destined to be "driven 
away in their wickedness," to "go away 
into everlasting punishment;" unless they 
voluntarily return, bj 7 repentance towards 
God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, to 
be numbered with the righteous, who have 
hope in their death, and inherit eternal life. 
In a word, every human being is either in 
Christ, or he is out of Christ. If in him, 
he is saved and is accounted righteous. If 
out of him, he is numbered with the wicked 
and, unless he repent, will be driven away 
in his wickedness and be eternally lost; 
"for our God is a consuming fire." 



The Fall and Recovery. 21 



CHAPTER II. 

THE FALL AND RECOVERY. 

We are now prepared to take another 
step, and affirm that, as every child of man 
is embraced in the atonement, and stands 
in a saved relation to God, in virtue of 
Christ's death, so is every one entitled to all 
the blessings and privileges accruing to the 
world through him, until by personal trans- 
gression he forfeits them. 

That man is a fallen creature is a fact ad- 
mitted by all. That he exists, since the fall, 
by virtue of the atonement, is equally clear. 
In the fall man lost everything. Life, with 
everything calculated to perpetuate or make 
it a blessing, was forfeited by the first trans- 
gression. Had God not provided a Savior, 
the death-penalty must of necessit}' have 
been inflicted upon the first transgressors; 
for his very nature forbids that creatures 



22 Children in Christ. 

should be brought into existence to suffer 
the consequences of an act in which they 
had no part, without any possible means of 
escape therefrom. And as we exist by vir- 
tue of the death of Christ, so have we in 
him, absolutely and unconditionally, all 
that is needed to make that existence a 
perfect and perfectly happy one, until by 
personal transgression we forfeit it. I do 
not say that we are thereby exempted from 
natural and physical evils, such as the in- 
firmities attaching to depraved nature, and 
the dissolution of soul and body, which we 
call temporal death; but even these could 
not be allowed to exist if they were not 
compensated for in the resurrection, of 
which we have a pledge and first fruits in 
the resurrection of Christ. But I do say 
that the grace of salvation, with everything 
attaching thereto, whether as a means of 
grace or as a sign and seal of " the right- 
eousness of God;" whether as a type point- 
ing to the coming antitype, or as a memo- 
rial of the great fact of redemption consum- 
mated in the death and resurrection of 
Christ, is absolutely and unconditionally se- 



The Fall and Recovery. 23 

cured to every child of man, to be forfeited 
only by actual, personal transgression. 

The Church of God, in a spiritual sense, 
is nothing more nor less than fallen spirits 
restored to the favor and image of God, by 
virtue of the death of Christ, through the 
agency of the Holy Spirit; and in its visi- 
ble, organized form it consists of a recogni- 
tion of this relation to God in Christ by 
the signs appointed of God, and mutual 
recognition among the associated worship- 
ers of God. Baptism is a — I may say the 
— sign of divine ownership, appointed of 
God himself to designate as his all who are 
justified in Christ Jesus. It was not given 
as a sign of repentance nor of faith, but of 
righteousness — the righteousness of God. 
It was not, therefore, intended only, nor 
necessarily, to follow faith; but to encour- 
age and strengthen faith, by setting forth 
our need of cleansing and symbolizing the 
purifying influence of "the Holy Spirit of 
God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of 
redemption," and at the same time remind- 
ing us that we belong to God and should 
therefore keep ourselves unspotted from the 



24 Children in Christ. 

world. AH, therefore, who belong to God — 
all who stand in a justified relation to him 
through Christ — have a right to this sign of 
divine ownership, this seal of the righteous- 
ness of God. Yea, more, justice absolutely 
demands that it should be placed upon all 
such; and whoever assumes to forbid it to 
any, even the least of his children, assumes 
thereby a fearful responsibility, for which 
he is in nowise to be envied. If this be 
true — and who will dare gainsay it? — to 
determine whether children — infant children 
— have or have not a right to Christian 
baptism, we have only to ascertain whether 
they stand in a f justified relation to God, or 
not! Xeed we argue that they do? Will 
any affirm that they do not? If so, on what 
ground will they base infant salvation ? On 
what condition are those who die in infancy 
saved? or are all such lost? If they are not 
justified, there must be a reason why they 
are not, and whatever that reason is, when 
it is found, its removal must be the condition 
of their justification. 

Shall we say that death, to the infant, is 
the condition of justification? To this 



The Fall and Recovery. 25 

thet*e are two insuperable objections: First, 
if death be the condition, then they must 
die before they can.be justified; for the con- 
dition must be fulfilled before that which is 
consequent on it can be realized; second, it 
must be a voluntary act on the part of those 
who perform, or comply with, the condi- 
tion; else it were no condition at all. If 
justification takes place after death, then 
is the kingdom of heaven composed of 
unjustified persons; for "of such (these un- 
justified infants) is the kingdom of heaven!" 
If death is the result of volition, then are 
all who die guilty of suicide; and it follows 
that God has made the highest crime in the 
decalogue, viz.: murder — self-murder — the 
condition of salvation! The truth is, it is 
impossible for them to stand in any other 
than a justified relation to God, until they 
are capable of sin, for sin is the only thing 
that can separate from God any of his 
creatures. Nor is it any reply to this to 
say, they are depraved; for depravity is not 
sin, but only the result of it, and the per- 
verted soil to which sin is indigenous. 
We would not be misunderstood. We 



26 Children in Christ. 

do not deny the depravity of human na- 
ture; nor are we disposed to explain it 
away. On the contrary, we heartily en- 
dorse and teach the doctrine of total de- 
pravity. It lies at the very foundation of 
human redemption. If the nature of man 
had not been attainted by the sin of Adam 
and Eve, and entailed by them upon their 
descendants, there would have been no need 
of a Redeemer, for each and every child 
would have stood as unblemished as he was 
unblamable before God, and only the original 
pair — the transgressors — would have been 
punished. Where there is no disease there 
can be no need of a physician. In the fact, 
therefore, that man is depraved, lies the 
necessity of the atonement. For nothing 
impure can enter heaven ; and the absolute 
justice of God renders it impossible for him 
either to punish his creatures for an act of 
which they were not personally guilty, or 
for actual, personal transgressions necessi- 
tated by a state or condition into which they 
were brought without any agency of their 
own. That man should exist then, after 
the fall, it became necessary that a Savior 



The Fall and Recovery. 27 

should be provided. To be a perfect Sav- 
ior, lie must provide for all who are in- 
volved in the consequences of the original 
transgression; hence, "Jesus Christ by the 
grace of God tasted death for every man." 
All who enjoy, or are entitled to, the favor 
of God, are indebted for the same to the 
death of Christ, and have a divine, a blood- 
bought right to all the blessings and privi- 
leges accruing to the world through him; 
for God is no respecter of persons. Nothing 
save Christ and him crucified can possibly 
secure to a single child of man — young or 
old — any, even the least blessing or privilege; 
and, thank God! nothing but sin — actual, 
personal transgression of divine law — can 
deprive any of the right to anything pur- 
chased by his death. 

Infant children, as we have seen, are en- 
titled, by virtue of Christ's death, to the 
blessing of salvation; and, as the greater 
includes the less, it follows, unavoidably, 
that they have an indisputable right to 
membership in the Church, and to the sign 
and seal of the righteousness of God, se- 
cured to them in Christ. In a word, that 



28 Children in Christ. 

they are proper subjects for Christian bap- 
tism, and their right to this ordinance is in- 
separable from the atonement. If the right 
to baptism is not secured by the death of 
Christ, how and by what is it secured? This 
is an important question, and we hope the 
reader will not lightly pass it by. In order 
more clearly to see its force and bearing 
upon the subject, we ask, What gives an 
adult the right to be baptized? Does re- 
pentance or faith, or do both, repentance 
and faith, give him the right? We do not 
ask whether they are required, or are neces- 
sary, in the case of an adult; but is it by 
virtue of them that the right is secured? 
Evidently not. There is no merit, no vir- 
tue, in anything but Christ crucified. Why, 
then, is an adult required to repent and be- 
lieve before he receives the ordinance of 
baptism? Answer: Because he has, by 
personal transgression, forfeited the favor 
of God and the right to all blessings pur- 
chased by his Son ; gone away from Christ, 
in whom alone the right is found. He must, 
therefore, return voluntarily, by repentance 
and faith, in order to avail himself of the 



Tint Fall and Recovery. 29 

right forfeited by sin. The right inheres 
in Christ. To leave Christ is to forfeit the 
right. This he did when he sinned. By 
repentance and faith he returns to Christ, 
and to the right which was his before he 
sinned, because in Christ. He is not bap- 
tized because he believes, but because he 
stands in a justified relation to God in 
Christ. This relation, it is true, is secured 
by faith, which is the condition of justifica- 
tion; but why? why is faith necessary? Be- 
cause he has sinned. To make faith, then, 
a prerequisite to baptism is to make sin 
necessary also; for if a man must repent 
and believe before he is qualified to receive 
baptism, he must have something to repent 
of, and in order to this he must sin, for 
nothing but sin can qualify him for repent- 
ance. Thus we see that to reject infant 
baptism is to make sin a necessary qualifica- 
tion for the reception of an ordinance of 
the Church of God. To say that infants 
ought not to be baptized, because they can 
not repent and believe, is the same as to 
say they ought not to be baptized because 
they have not sinned. It is equivalent to 



30 Children in Christ. 

saying they have no right to church mem- 
bership because they have not forfeited that 
right ! It makes sin a prerequisite to mem- 
bership in the Church of God! — a forfeiture 
of the kingdom essential to the inheritance 
of it! Recur again to the question, What 
gives a man the right to Christian baptism, 
to membership in the Church of God, and 
to each and all the blessings and privileges 
of the gospel? Can any be at a loss for an 
answer? Do they not all grow out of the 
death of Christ, and hang around the cross 
as so many memorials of the great fact of 
human redemption, culminating in the ago- 
nies of the death struggle, which was the 
life-giving pang to a sin-ruined world? Do 
they not — the sacraments — receive their 
significance from thence? and are they not 
beautiful only when seen in the light emit- 
ted from the Sun of Righteousness, whose 
golden beams, falling upon the dewdrops of 
death, span with the bow of hope the gulf 
which separates time from eternity, its 
farther end resting on the walls of the 
celestial city? Now, if this be true, if all 
are secured by the death of Christ, then 



The Fall and Recovery. 31 

every one recognized by the Father as jus- 
tified through his blood is entitled to all 
that he purchased. If, therefore, infants 
are in a justified relation to God by virtue 
of the atonement, and baptism is secured 
by the same, it follows, necessarily, that 
they ought to be baptized. 

Again, if baptism is a symbol or sign of 
any real spiritual blessing resulting from 
the death of Christ, then all who are the 
recipients of such blessings are also entitled 
to the symbol or sign. Baptism is a sym- 
bol of spiritual blessings, and infants are 
the recipients of those blessings; therefore 
infants are entitled to the ordinance of bap- 
tism. Nor does it matter what we make 
baptism represent, if only it be something 
purchased by the death of Christ, and of 
which infants are partakers. If we say it 
represents the death, burial and resurrec- 
tion (which however we do not believe), 
then, as infants have a real interest in his 
death, and a certain pledge in his resurrec- 
tion that they shall be raised from the dead, 
they ought by all means to be baptized. 
If they are possessed of a fallen, depraved 



32 Children in Christ. 

nature, which must be cleansed, renewed, 
in order to their inheriting eternal life; and 
if that cleansing is secured by the death of 
Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit, and 
baptism is a sign of that cleansing, it would 
be unreasonable and unjust to withhold it 
from them. In whatever light we view the 
subject — unless we deny human depravity 
and say that infants have no need of a Sav- 
ior, no interest in the atonement — the only 
reasonable conclusion to which we can pos- 
sibly come is, that infants are proper sub- 
jects for and have a divine right to Chris- 
tian baptism. 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 03 



CHAPTER III. 

THE UNITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

Such is the conclusion to which reason, 
in the light of the atonement as a revealed 
fact, conducts us. If our reasoning is found 
to accord with the facts of Scripture there 
can be no defect in it, and our conclusion 
must be the truth. We proceed then to in- 
quire, Is the right of infants to Christian 
baptism recognized by God in the Bible? 
In seeking an answer to this question we 
must have recourse to the Bible alone, but 
to all the Bible. We must begin with the 
first word that fell from the lips of God 
upon the ear of fallen man, and carefully 
note everything that is said and done by 
him or by his direction, that Infinite Wis- 
dom has seen proper to record for our in- 
struction; for "all Scripture is given by in- 
spiration, and is profitable." The Bible, 
2 



34 Children in Christ. 

like the plan of redemption, was begun, 
carried on and completed in Jesus Christ 
our Lord; and like it is one and indivisible. 
The kingdom of heaven is essentially a 
spiritual one; yet, in order to its establish- 
ment, it became necessary that the King 
should be manifested in the flesh; and as 
well might we now contend that, as the 
atonement is finished, and no further sac- 
rifice is needed, we have no further interest 
in the incarnate Son, as to contend that, as 
the prophecies and types pointing to the 
coming of Christ and the perfected organ- 
ization of his Church have met their fulfill- 
ment in him, we have no further use for 
the Old Testament Scriptures. As well 
contend that, as Christ Jesus did not com- 
plete the work of atonement until he grew 
to the perfect stature of manhood, we have 
no interest in the babe of Bethlehem, as to 
contend that, as the Church did not reach 
the zenith of her power until her brow was 
wreathed with the chaplet of fire on the 
day of Pentecost, she had no existence be- 
fore, or that we have no interest in her his- 
tory. 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 35 

Jesus was as really the Son of God and 
the Redeemer of the world when the star 
of the wise men went and " stood over 
where the young child lay," as when he as- 
serted his power over death and the grave, 
and smote the Roman soldiery with the 
glories of his triumphant resurrection. So 
the gospel was as really "the power of God 
unto salvation to every one that believeth," 
when first it fell from the lips of God in 
the prophetic announcement, "The seed of 
the woman shall bruise the serpent's head," 
as when Peter, on the day of Pentecost, 
said, " Ye men of Israel, hear these words : 
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God 
among you by miracles and wonders and 
signs, which God did by him in the midst 
of you, as ye yourselves also know, him, 
being delivered by the determinate counsel 
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, 
and by wicked hands have crucified and 
slain ;" or as when Paul stood in the midst 
of Mars Hill, and, calling the attention of 
the Athenians to the inscription on oOe of 
their altars, "To the unknown God," said: 



36 Children in Christ 

"Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, 
him declare I unto you." 

In this promise, " The seed of the woman 
shall bruise the serpent's head," we recog- 
nize the whole of the gospel, to be unfolded 
in the future dealings of God with the 
human race, exemplified in the life of 
Christ, the promised seed, and to culminate 
in the grandeur of finished perfection on 
the cross. 

If Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, 
then all who have ever been saved have been 
saved by him, and, if saved by him, saved 
through the merits of his death ; for he is "as 
a Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world. " If they were not saved through the 
merits of his death, then either they were not 
saved at all, or the death of Christ was an un- 
necessary sacrifice; for, if for four thousand 
years God could save man without the sac- 
rifice of his Son, he might have continued 
to save in the same way, and the sufferings 
and death of Jesus Christ are wholly unnec- 
essary ! But many were saved, as the Scrip- 
tures plainly teach, and to say they were 
not saved through the blood of Jesus 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 37 

Christ, is to charge God with a work of 
supererogation and the useless sacrifice of 
his only Son to suffering and death ! If the 
death of Jesus Christ was the procuring 
cause of salvation then, as it is now, it was 
made available by the same means — applied 
on the same conditions — that it is now; i. e. 9 
by faith — faith, too, in the same Savior and 
through, the same gospel. If they had the 
gospel and were saved by faith, they con- 
stituted the Church of God; for the Church 
of God is nothing more than fallen spirits 
redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ, and 
saved through the merits of his blood. A 
recognition of these, on the part of God, 
by sign or seal appointed by himself, con- 
stitutes the visible Church. The gospel was 
designed to be the power of God unto sal- 
vation to them that believe; the saved to 
constitute the Church, and the sign by 
which they are recognized before men as 
the people of God to render them the visible 
Church. We have seen that, from the day 
of expulsion from Eden, man has had the 
gospel; and that from the time that Abel, 
by faith, offered a more excellent sacrifice 



38 Children in Christ. 

than Cain, God has had a Church in the 
world. Now, if we can find when the first 
sealing ordinance, or sign, was appointed, 
we shall see when the visible Church was 
organized; and if we can find upon whom 
that sign and seal was placed by divine au- 
thority, we shall learn who are entitled to 
membership in the Church. In our search 
we turn to the Bible, and, that we may know 
all that is revealed on the subject, we begin 
with the fall of man and carefully note the 
unfoldings of Infinite Wisdom in the de- 
velopment of that promise which became 
the pledge of an earthly existence to man, 
and the foundation on which he might build 
a hope of eternal happiness. 

Bear in mind, we base the right of all — 
infants and aditlts — to salvation and every- 
thing pertaining thereto, on the atonement, 
and contend that everything purchased by 
Christ is secured unconditionally to all, till 
forfeited by personal transgression; and 
now inquire whether, in his dealings with 
man, God has recognized this right. No 
one doubts that, when God said to Adam, 
"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 39 

return/' he included all his descendants 
also. But the justice of that sentence can 
be found only in the fact that, " as in Adam 
all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
As certainly as all die as a result of Adam's 
transgression, shall all be raised from the 
dead as a result of the death and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. But only they who 
die in Christ shall be raised to^ everlasting 
life; the rest, to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt. If, therefore, infants 2 had not been 
embraced in the promise, they could not have 
been embraced in the curse ; for, unless they 
died in Christ, they could not be raised to 
eternal life, and as they were not personally 
guilty they could not, by a just God, be 
consigned to eternal death. Thus, in the 
very fact that infants die, physically, we 
have abundant proof that they were em- 
braced in the first covenant promise of God 
to man. Yea, more, in their death we find 
a display of divine mercy. Instance the 
death of the antediluvians: Only on the 
hypothesis that all the infants were saved 
in heaven can we reconcile the justice of 
God with the destruction of the world by 



40 Children in Christ. 

the waters of the flood. But, assuming 
that they were, we not only see the justice 
of God in cutting off the wicked doers, but 
his mercy also, in taking the innocent in- 
fants to everlasting happiness, instead of 
leaving them to grow up under the evil 
influences which would, almost certainly, 
lead them to everlasting destruction. The 
mercy of God is seen also in sparing the 
only righteous man and his family. The 
judgment of God, which they had seen vis- 
ited upon a wicked world, was a fearful 
warning to them against sin; while their 
own preservation was evidence that right- 
eousness would be rewarded. And, as there 
were now no wicked doers in the world, to 
entice them from the paths of virtue, they 
would have a fair opportunity to raise their 
children "in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." 

That they might not be troubled with the 
fear of another flood, the Lord established 
a covenant with them, and with their seed 
after them, saying, " Neither shall all flesh 
be cut oft* any more by the waters of a 
floods neither shall there any more be a 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 41 

flood to destroy the earth.'' The token of 
this covenant was a "bow in the cloud." In 
this "covenant" and "token" all, both 
young and old, were and are interested. 
When men began again to multiply upon 
the earth, forgetting the judgment which 
had followed the sins of their fathers — or, 
perhaps, presuming upon the covenant of 
the Lord — they turned aside again into 
their wicked ways. They even sought to 
defy the Lord, in building " a city, and a 
tower, whose top should reach unto heav- 
en." But "the Lord came down to see the 
city and tower which the children of men 
builded;" and thwarted their purpose by 
confounding their language, so that they 
could not understand one another's speech, 
and scattering them abroad upon the face 
of the earth. In this visitation, also, the 
children were included, and hence the di- 
versity of tongues continues; the parents 
transmitting their several languages to their 
children, and thus keeping up a perpetual 
memorial of this second great miraculous 
visitation of God upon man. 
"But what has all this to do with the 



42 Children in Christ. 

subject under consideration? There is not 
a word about the Church, or even of salva- 
tion, in all the transaction." True, but it 
shows how, from the beginning, God has 
dealt with man, recognizing the essential 
unity of human nature, and, in the diversity 
consequent on this judgment, necessitating 
the form of the promise to be given in the 
next covenant of God with man. Until the 
building of the tower of Babel, not only 
was human nature a unit, but there was a 
oneness of nationality and language also. 
Thenceforward, while the unity of nature 
continued, there was to be a diversity of 
nationalities and languages; and as all were 
equally involved in the fall, and all equally 
interested in the promised Seed, which 
should bruise the serpent's head, it became 
necessary in renewing the promise of the 
Seed — which also is one — and the promise 
was never renewed until this necessity ex- 
isted — to adapt the promise to the diversi- 
fied condition of that nature which was to 
be redeemed. Hence, in the covenant made 
with Abraham the language is, "In thee 
shall all families of the earth be blessed," 



The Unity of the Scriptures, 43 

"and all the nations of the earth shall be 
blessed in him." It is true, the promise in 
this covenant is twofold ; and in this is seen, 
not only the mercy of God in extending the 
promise of salvation to all the descendants 
of Adam, but his wisdom also in adapting 
the means to the end to be accomplished. 
However diversified the conditions of the 
human race, in consequence of sin, they are 
destined, if saved, to be one in Christ Jesus 
and to speak one language, the pure lan- 
guage of Zion ; and as they descended from 
one head, Adam, so they are to constitute 
one body, the head of which is Christ. But, 
as they who were to constitute the mem- 
bers of this body were "partakers of flesh 
and blood," it was necessary that he should 
take "part of the same;" hence the incar- 
nation — "God manifest in the flesh." 

"The Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world," was already slain, in 
the purpose of the Almighty, and his blood 
was already efficacious in the pardon of sin ; 
but the world was not ready for his recep- 
tion in the flesh — not prepared to understand 
and appreciate his coming. The nations of 



44 Children in Christ. 

the earth were to be taught that there is 
but one God, the Creator of all and on 
whom all depend for life and all life's bless- 
ings; also, that all wrong-doing is sin, sin 
against God, and can be forgiven only by 
him. In order to this there must be a pe- 
culiar people — peculiar for their devotiou 
to the one true and living God, and for the 
manifestation of his favor in blessing them 
and in defending them from the fury of 
their enemies. Hence the promise to Abra- 
ham: "I will make of thee a great nation, 
and I will bless thee and make thy name 
great." This, however, is not the end or 
object, but only the means to accomplish it; 
hence it is added, "In thee shall all families 
of the earth be blessed/' Abraham is to 
be blessed, but chiefly that he may be made 
a blessing to the world. 

This promise of blessings to all nations 
was based upon the atonement and condi- 
tioned, to each and every individual, upon 
the acceptance, by faith, of the promised 
"seed, which is Christ," as the only me- 
dium through which blessings could come. 
The covenant, on the part of man, was this 



The Unity of the Scriptures. 45 

acceptance with its implied promise of faith- 
fulness unto death; and the token of the 
covenant, "the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith," by which 
Christ was accepted. The people thus be- 
lieving and sealed were the peculiar people 
of God, and constituted the Church of God. 
Among these infants are found, recognized 
by God as covered by the atonement, em- 
braced in the promise, and sealed as a part 
of the Church entitled to all its blessings 
and privileges. Unless, therefore, God or 
the nature of man has changed, or the law 
recognizing infant membership has been re- 
pealed, as they are still covered by the 
atonement and are "of the kingdom of 
God," infants are still entitled to the recog- 
nition of their membership in the sealing 
ordinance of the Church, viz.: Christian 
baptism. 



46 Children in Christ. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT. 

"When we speak of the covenant with 
Abraham, we do not mean that a new 
Church was formed and a new promise 
given; but, simply, that the original prom- 
ise was renewed and the Church, in her 
outward forms, adapted to the peculiar 
condition of the human family. Christ 
was the Savior of the world, the Redeemer 
of mankind, of human nature as a whole; 
and, as the circumstances of that nature 
were now changed, and the relations among 
men diversified, it became necessary to im- 
press upon their minds the fact that no 
changes in the circumstances and relations 
of men among themselves could, in the 
least, affect their relation to God, or change 
the nature which he had given them — that 
he had redeemed man, as such, and that, 



The Promise and Covenant. 47 

as individuals, to whatever nation they 
might belong, and whatever their relations 
and circumstances in life, salvation was 
offered to them, and if they rejected or 
neglected it/it would be at their own haz- 
ard. Hence the promise is to " all nations." 
We say, had redeemed, because the blood 
of Jesus Christ was just as efficacious in 
the pardon of sin when the promise was 
first given, as it is now, ever was or ever 
will be. 

The promise renewed to Abraham was 
the same that was originally made to Adam, 
and, of necessity, was as universal in its 
bearings upon man. The covenant was 
the application of the promise to particular 
individuals, "a coming together" of God 
and man on the basis of the atonement, 
which was made by Christ, the promised 
seed. The promise was, "in thee shall all 
families of the earth be blessed;" the cove- 
nant was, "to be a God unto thee and to 
thy seed after thee." The one having ref- 
erence to the universality of the atonement 
and the blessings accruing to the world 
thereby; the other is a confirmation of the 



48 Children in Christ 

promise to them who, by faith, accept the 
proffered deliverance, and a guarantee of 
eternal happiness to all who keep the cove- 
nant to the end of life. The one was the 
gospel preached, the other the gospel con- 
firmed by faith in them that heard it. 
"Know ye therefore that they which are 
of faith, the same are the children of 
Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing 
that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations 
be blessed." (Gal. iii. 7-8.) Here we 
have undoubted authority for calling the 
promise made to Abraham, the gospel 
preached; and also for declaring that faith 
is necessary to confirm that gospel in bless- 
ings to the hearer. 

Paul, speaking of this very thing — the 
receiving of the promise by faith — says, 
"And this I say, that the covenant that was 
confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, can not disannul, that it should make 
the promise of none effect." (Gal. iii. 17.) 
Thus we see that the great end had in view 



The Promise and Covenant. 49 

in the covenant made with Abraham was 
the offer of salvation to the whole human 
family, through our Lord Jesus Christ; and 
that the temporal blessings promised to 
Abraham and his seed according to the 
flesh were only means to accomplish the 
end. Now, to this covenant there was fixed 
a sign, a seal : " This is my covenant, which 
ye shall keep, between me and you and thy 
seed after thee; every man-child among 
you shall be circumcised. And ye shall 
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and 
it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt 
me and you." (Gen. xvii. 10, 11.) That 
this "token of the covenant" had reference 
to spiritual blessings", and was the visible 
bond of union between the people of God, 
constituting them the visible Church, is 
plainly taught by the apostle Paul, in the 
language following : "And he received the 
sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
eousness of the faith which he had yet be- 
ing uncircumcised: that he might be the 
father of all them that believe, though they 
be not circumcised; that righteousness 
3 



50 Children in Christ. 

might be imputed unto them also." (Rom. 
iv.ll.) 

The Abrahamic covenant, then, was a 
mutual agreement between God on the one 
part, and Abraham and his seed on the 
other — seed being defined by the apostle to 
mean all who are " the children of God by- 
faith in Christ Jesus'" — and the basis of 
agreement, the point at which they come 
together, the at-ONE-ment. "The token of 
the covenant" was circumcision. Appointed 
by God, to be kept by Abraham, it was the 
sign of faith and the seal of the righteous- 
ness which is by faith. We must not con- 
clude, however, that circumcision must 
necessarily follow faith, nor that none but 
they who are capable of faith — of under- 
standing the covenant and believing the 
promise — are to receive the token; for in- 
fants are specifically embraced in the prom- 
ise, and commanded to be circumcised at 
"eight days old." 

We have now reached the point from 
which the history of the Church may be 
traced to the time of the incarnation of the 
Son of God, the perfecting of the work of 



The Promise and Covenant. 51 

atonement and the closing up of prophecy 
and revelation. We have seen that, since 
the fall, Jesus Christ, and him crucified, is 
the only medium of access God has ever had 
to man, or man to God; that life and all 
life's blessings, spiritual and temporal, were 
secured by the death of him who was "as 
a Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world;" and that all these blessings — in- 
cluding salvation in heaven — were abso- 
lutely and unconditionally secured to every 
child of man, until forfeited by actual, per- 
sonal transgression. We have also seen 
that, in all his dealings with man, God has 
recognized this fact and included infants in 
every promise and covenant he has made 
to and with man. And finally, that, in the 
"covenant confirmed of God in Christ," to 
be kept by Abraham and his seed, "for an 
everlasting covenant," he has embraced in- 
fants and placed upon them his own sign 
and seal. Now, unless it shall appear that 
this "everlasting covenant" has been dis- 
placed by another, or modified by God him- 
self, infants are still entitled to all the bless- 
ings and privileges secured thereby; and 



52 Children in Christ. 

any interference with their rights, on the 
part of parents or others, is a positive wrong 
to the infants and an offense against God. 
Has the Abrahamic covenant been thns 
displaced, or modified so as to exclude in- 
fants? If so, we shall surely find some rec- 
ord of it in the Bible. It will not be con- 
tended that any such change was made 
previous to the coming of Christ in the 
flesh, and we might content us with assert- 
ing what none will deny; but the argument 
is cumulative, and we prefer to notice a 
few facts developed in the history of the 
Church under what is called the Mosaic 
dispensation. Let the grand, central fact 
of human redemption, Christ crucified, be 
kept prominently before the mind as the 
basis of our argument — the ground on 
which the right of all, infants and adults, 
to any and every blessing and privilege is 
based. Remember that he is the great Sun 
of the moral system, and that the truths of 
revelation are the rays of light emitted 
from him — u The entrance of thy word giv- 
eth light" — and that these rays, like the 
rays of the natural sun, " unite and mingle 



The Promise and Covenant. 53 

Into one/' the Bible. " Thy word is a lamp 
unto my feet, and a light unto my path," is 
as applicable to the New as to the Old Test- 
ament; and, "I am the light of the world," 
was as really true before as after "the Word 
was made flesh and dwelt among us." 

The nature of man being the same, and 
Jesus Christ being " the same yesterday, to- 
day and forever," it follows that the rela- 
tion which that nature sustains to God in 
or through Christ must also remain the 
same. The relation being the same, and 
God being unchanged and unchangeable, 
he can not cease to recognize that relation. 
Either, then, human nature, as manifested 
or existing in infants, never sustained any 
recognized relation to God by virtue of the 
atonement of Christ, or it does sustain some 
recognized relation now. But we have seen 
that the same relation which exists between 
an adult believer and God exists also between 
infants and God, and that the sign and seal 
by which the relation of the adult is recog- 
nized is, by the same authority, placed upon 
the infant. Now, unless it can be shown 
that this law of recognition has been re- 



54 Children in Christ. 

pealed by the same authority that enacted 
it, the unavoidable conclusion is that it is 
still binding, and that to refuse to observe 
it is to show contempt for the Lawgiver. 
If, on the other hand, this law has been re- 
pealed, to continue its observance is to hold 
in contempt the authority by which it was 
repealed. But it has not been repealed; 
and the proof of this is the fact that no 
such record can be found. Nay, more; it 
has not only not been repealed, but it is 
impossible in the very nature of things that 
it could be. 

The atonement can neither be enlarged 
nor diminished. Its circumference is 
bounded by the love of God and marked 
by the blood of Jesus Christ. Whoever, of 
the human race, is compassed by the love 
of God, is redeemed by the blood of Christ. 
u Hereby perceive we the love of God, be- 
cause he laid down his life for us." The 
evidence of his love is that "he ^ave his 
only begotten Son." To give the Lion is to 
give all that is embraced in him. Any- 
thing less would imply a partial gift — the 
gift of a part only, and not the whole of the 



The Promise and Covenant 55 

Son. To whomsoever, therefore, the Son 
is given belongs of right, and necessarily, 
all that inheres in him. If it can be shown 
that the right to any blessing, privilege, 
immunity, rite, ordinance or sacrament ex- 
ists independently of Christ, or was or can 
be originated by anything else than the 
sacrificial offering made by him in his 
death, then, to that blessing, privilege or 
whatever else it may be called, we set up 
no claim either for adults or infants who 
are saved by virtue of the atonement. But 
we can not consent to limit or divide the 
atonement itself. 

A careful study of the plan of salvation, 
as developed in the dealings of God with 
man, and recorded in the Bible, will, we 
think, satisfy any unprejudiced mind of the 
truth of what we have said. To help in 
that study, we proceed to note a few facts 
in that history. The original promise be- 
ing, as we have seen, renewed to Abraham 
in a form adapted to the changed condition 
of man, and a covenant entered into with 
him upon the basis of that promise — the 
promise that "the seed of the woman shall 



56 Children in Christ. 

bruise the serpent's head," and in which, as 
the seed of Abraham, " all the families of 
the earth" are to be blessed — and a "seal" 
being set to that covenant, which is to be a 
"sign" of the righteousness which is to be 
attained to by faith in the promised seed, 
thus constituting and marking them as the 
peculiar people of God, the history of his 
family, thenceforward, is fraught with in- 
terest to the whole human race — all the na- 
tions of the earth. That history is but a 
gradual development to man of the plan of 
salvation. The plan was not originated in 
nor with Abraham. It originated in the 
mind of God and was perfect. It needed no 
additions, no modification, and admitted 
of no change. It was unfolded to and for 
the inspection of man just as, in the wis- 
dom of God, was seen to be the best for 
him. In that unfolding a special and ten- 
der regard is had for the children at every 
step. 

The promise originally given to Adam 
was renewed to Abraham, and afterward re- 
peated to Isaac in the same form : " In thy 
seed shall all the nations of the earth be 



The Promise and Covenant 57 

blessed/' (Gen. xxvi. 4.) In the twenty- 
eighth chapter, fourteenth verse, it is re- 
peated to Jacob: "And in thee and in thy 
seed shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed." These different forms of the same 
promise can not be regarded as the result 
of accident, for they are the utterances of 
Infinite Wisdom, and their adaptedness to 
the nature and necessities of man evidences 
their divine origin. The nature of man is 
a unit, and as such it is redeemed by " one 
man," Christ Jesus, who took upon himself 
that nature, entire. But while the nature 
is one, it is possessed by a number of indi- 
viduals, each one of whom is embraced in 
in the atonement because the nature which 
they each and all alike possess was redeemed 
by the one atoning sacrifice. By the ap- 
pointment of God, these individuals exist 
in groups or families. These families make 
up communities, and these communities 
unite to form nations, etc. Now, there is 
a mutual dependency, growing out of the 
oneness of nature, running through the 
whole, from the smallest families upward 
and outward through the whole human f am- 



58 Children in Christ. 

ily, which is one. As each family is just 
what the individuals constituting it make 
it, so each community is what the families 
make it; and so on through governments, 
nations, the world. 

This being true, the importance of proper 
family government will be readily seen by 
all. And it requires but little acquaint- 
ance with history, or a moderate degree of 
observation, to satisfy any one that the best 
regulated family governments are those 
where the Bible is recognized as the rule 
of action. Why is this? "We answer, 
because the religion provided by God 
for, and revealed in the Bible to man, 
is adapted by Infinite Wisdom to the 
necessities of his nature. The first church 
or religious society, with sign and seal of 
righteousness appointed, of which we have 
any account, was in a family — the family 
of Abraham. The reason given by God 
himself for the selection of Abraham with 
whom to make the covenant is, "For I 
know him, that he will command his chil- 
dren and his household after him, and they 
shall keep the way of the Lord, to do jus- 



The Promise and Covenant. 59 

tice and judgment." (Gen. xviii. 19.) Thus 
we see that in the " everlasting covenant," 
which was " confirmed of God in Christ," 
and which was to benefit all nations and 
families of the earth, the children were to 
be commanded after the father. What is 
implied in this the facts in the history show. 
The sign and seal of the covenant was 
placed upon infants. Strange that they 
were not allowed to grow up and choose 
for themselves ! 

After this we have no special mention of 
children, except as they are embraced in 
the general history of Israel and in the 
blessings pronounced upon the sons of 
Jacob, until the giving of the law amid the 
thunderings of Mount Sinai. The ten com- 
mandments, written by the finger of God 
upon tables of stone, are an embodiment of 
laws such as, in the very nature of things, 
are binding upon all men, through all time. 
They are adapted alike, to all conditions of 
men. No changes of relations among men, 
nor of forms of government — Church or 
State — can in the least affect them. Among 
these commandments is one corresponding 



60 Children in Christ. 

precisely with the duty of parents to com- 
mand their children: "Honor thy father 
and thy mother." That this was intended 
to apply to children at a very early age is 
proved by the connection in which it is 
quoted by the apostle Paul, Ephesians vi. 
1-4: "Children, obey your parents in the 
Lord: for this is right." How does the 
apostle prove that it is right for children 
to obey their parents? By quoting the 
commandment: " Honor thy father and 
thy mother," which he tells us, "is the first 
commandment with promise." 

The duties of parents and children are 
reciprocal; beginning, however, with the 
parents. If parents would have their chil- 
dren to honor them with obedience "in the 
Lord," they must "bring them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord;" that 
is, they must recognize their relation to 
God in Christ, in the use of the appointed 
ordinance of God, and teach them the ob- 
ligations imposed thereby — feed them with 
food convenient, that, thus nourished, they 
may grow up "in the way they should go," 
and when they are old they " will not de- 



The Promise and Covenant. 61 

part from it." "And now, Israel, what 
cloth the Lord thy God require of thee, but 
to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his 
ways, and to love him, and to serve the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart and with 
all thy soul, to keep the commandments of 
the Lord, and his statutes, which I com- 
mand thee this day for thy good? Behold, 
the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the 
Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that 
therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in 
thy fathers to love them, and he chose their 
seed after them, even you above all people, 
as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the 
foreskin of your heart, and be no more 
stiff-necked." (Deut. x. 12-16.) Here we 
learn that the covenant made with the fa- 
thers — the Abrahamic covenant — required 
them to love the Lord with all the heart, 
and with all the soul, and that circumcis- 
ion, the seal of the covenant, was signifi- 
cant of that fact. The circumcision of the 
flesh was a sign of the circumcision of the 
heart, called by the apostle "the righteous- 
ness which is by faith." 

It was not enough that they should be 



62 Children in Christ. 

circumcised and keep the commandments 
of God; the covenant was to be perpetual. 
It was an everlasting covenant: " There- 
fore shall ye lay up these my words in your 
heart and in your soul, and bind them for 
a sign upon your hand, that they may be 
as frontlets between your eyes. And ye 
shall teach them your children, speaking 
of them when thou sittest in thy house." 
(Deut. xi. 18, 19.) That the children were 
circumcised, all are compelled to admit, and 
here we are plainly told that they are to be 
taught the words of the Lord; evidently, 
that they may know the obligations of this 
covenant relation, and "love and serve the 
Lord with all their heart and with all their 
soul." 

Again, Moses, after forty years' wander- 
ing in the wilderness, and just before his 
death, called all Israel together, and, after 
reminding them of the great temptations 
through which they had passed, and of the 
signs and great miracles which they had 
seen, said unto them: "Ye stand this day 
all of you before the Lord your God; your 
captains of your tribes, your elders, and 



The Promise and Covenant. 63 

your officers, with all the men of Israel, 
your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger 
that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy 
wood unto the drawer of thy water: that 
thou shouldest enter into covenant with the 
Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the 
Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; 
that he may establish thee to-day for a people 
unto himself, and that he maybe unto thee 
a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he 
hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, 
to Isaac, and to Jacob." (Deut. xxix. 10.) 
Here the " little ones," as well as the cap- 
tains, elders, officers, wives and strangers, 
"stand before the Lord their God/' and 
u enter into covenant with the Lord their 
God, and into his oath" "that he may es- 
tablish" them "for a people unto himself" 
and that he may be unto them a God, as 
he had "sworn unto their fathers, to Abra- 
ham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Nearly six 
hundred and fifty years had passed since 
God had entered into covenant with Abra- 
ham, promising to be a God unto him and 
to his seed after him, and that he would es- 
tablish his covenant for an everlasting cove- 



64 Children in Christ. 

riant. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had fallen 
asleep, Israel had suffered in cruel bondage 
for four hundred and thirty years, many 
changes had been experienced, as genera- 
tion after generation came and passed away, 
but no change had been wrought in the 
promise of God. The " everlasting cove- 
nant" remained unaltered, and under it the 
" little ones" were still recognized as a part 
of the people of God. 

Nor is this all. The promise still reaches 
forward, and the covenant embraces gener- 
ations yet unborn: " Neither with you only 
do I make this covenant and this oath; but 
with him that standeth here with us this 
day before the Lord our God, and also with 
him that is not here with us this day." 
(Ver. 15.) That future generations were in- 
tended by this language is evident from 
what immediately follows: "Lest there 
should be among you man, or woman, or 
family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away 
this day from the Lord our God, to go and 
serve the gods of these nations; lest there 
should be among you a root that beareth 
gall and wormwood; and it come to* pass, 



The Promise and Covenant 65 

when he heareth the word? of this curse, 
that he bless himself in his heart, saying, 
I shall have peace, though I walk in the 
imagination of mine heart, to add drunk- 
enness to thirst." In this and the remain- 
ing part of the chapter — which we hope 
the reader will carefully examine — the rea- 
son for embracing unborn generations in 
the covenant is given. It was, as declared 
to Abraham, to be an everlasting covenant; 
and though some, even whole nations, should 
" forsake the covenant of the Lord," the 
covenant itself should not be destroyed, but 
abide forever. 

I know it is said that the Abrahamic 
covenant was carnal, and that circumcision 
was only a national distinction, and, as a seal 
of the covenant, was only a pledge of earthly 
possessions in the land of Canaan, but upon 
what ground I have never been able to see, 
unless to avoid the conclusion to which the 
spirituality of that covenant, when ad- 
mitted, forces us in regard to. the church- 
membership of children! Certainly there 
is nothing in the covenant itself, as origin- 
5 



66 Children in Christ. 

ally given, to necessitate such a conclusion; 
and all the facts connected with the devel- 
opment and fulfillment of it absolutely for- 
bid the idea of carnality. It is true, the 
earthly Canaan — temporal blessings — were 
included in the promise and covenant; but 
only on the principle recognized by our 
Savior, and which has existed from the first, 
that, if ye " seek first the kingdom oi God, 
and his righteousness, all these things shall 
be added unto you." It is true also, that 
the literal descendants of Abraham were 
embraced in the promise, but only as we 
have before said, as a means to accomplish 
the end. Abraham was blessed, in this 
sense, that he might be made a blessing, 
spiritually, to all the nations of the earth. 
The basis and central idea of the covenant 
is Christ. He, according to the apostle 
Paul, is the promised seed: "Now to Abra- 
ham and his seed were the promises made. 
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; 
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is 
Christ." (Gal. iii. 16.) Christ is the sum 
and substance of the promise — of all the 
promises — so that to receive the promise is 



The Promise and Covenant. 67 

to receive Christ; and to receive Christ is 
to receive all possible good. 

We have said before, and now repeat, 
that every blessing, spiritual and temporal, 
ever enjoyed by man since Adam sinned — 
either possessed or in prospect — results to 
him from the atonement, being secured by 
the sacrificial death of Christ, who was "as 
a lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world.'' All spiritual blessings are, on the 
part of adults, received by faith. All tem- 
poral blessings that are or may be enjoyed 
by all men, without regard to piety, if hon- 
estly gotten, depend upon their own efforts 
under the blessing of God. If temporal 
blessings are made the subject of special 
promise to particular individuals or com- 
munities, it can be done only on the basis 
of the atonement, and conditioned on the 
acceptance of Christ, by whom all blessings 
are purchased, and in whom the right to 
all blessings inheres. It is, therefore, im- 
possible — we speak it reverently — for God 
to enter into covenant with man, securing 
to him thereby the right and title to any 
temporal, earthly inheritance, except on the 



68 Children in Christ. 

basis of the atonement, and by embracing 
Christ, the atoning sacrifice, in that cove- 
nant, as the medium through which to con- 
vey the promised temporal blessings. If 
the covenant be sealed, the seal, of neces- 
sity, becomes a guarantee of security to all 
the blessings promised; and, as the less is 
contained in the greater, can do so only by 
securing the greater. As Christ is the sum 
of all good — the medium through which all 
blessings come — to receive him is to receive 
all. The seal of the covenant, then, to be 
worth anything, must include Christ. As 
Christ must be received by faith, and as the 
faith that receives him is counted to the be- 
liever for righteousness, and that righteous- 
ness is the condition of receiving the tem- 
poral blessings, the seal must be just what 
Paul tells us circumcision was — "a seal of 
the righteousness of faith." 

Thus we see that, even if it could be 
proved that the covenant made with Abra- 
ham had reference to temporal blessings 
only, the seal to that covenant must, in or- 
der to secure them, embrace Christ as the 
procuring cause, and signify the relation 



The Promise and Covenant. 69 

sustained to him, which is necessary to the 
inheritance, and can not, therefore, in any 
proper sense, be called carnal. To avoid 
this conclusion, it must be made appear 
either that man did not lose everything in 
the fall, or that some things are restored to 
him independently of Christ and the atone- 
ment; neither of which will be attempted 
by any who believe the Bible. In perfect 
accordance with this are the facts in the 
history of the Israelites, under the Abra- 
hamic covenant. Notwithstanding the 
promise and the covenant of circumcision 
with which it was sealed, the inheritance of 
the earthly Canaan was made to depend on 
love and obedience to God: "I call heaven 
and earth to record this day against you, 
that I have set before you life and death, 
blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, 
that both thou and thy seed may live: That 
thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that 
thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou 
mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, 
and the length of thy days: that thou may- 
est dwell in the land which the Lord sware 
unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and 



70 Children in Christ. 

to Jacob, to give them." (Deut. xxx. 
20.) 

Moses, after speaking of the curses that 
should befall them, " because they had for- 
saken the covenant of the Lord God of their 
fathers," tells them that, if they "return 
unto the Lord," they and their children, 
with all their heart and with all their soul, 
the Lord will bring them into the land 
which their fathers possessed. "And the 
Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord 
thy God with all thine heart, and with all 
thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deut. 
xxx. 1-6.) Here we are clearly taught, 
first, that the inheritance and continued 
possession of even the earthly Canaan, de- 
pended upon obedience, as the condition, 
and that that obedience should proceed 
from love; second, that the state of mind, 
or heart, necessary to the required obedi- 
ence was called circumcision — the circum- 
cision of the heart; third, that this circum- 
cision of the heart is the work of God; 
fourth, that the condition upon which the 
Lord circumcised their hearts was, that they 



The Promise and Covenant. 71 

should "return unto the Lord;" fifth, that 
the Lord circumcised the hearts of the chil- 
dren, as well as the adults. If it be said 
that the promise, "I will circumcise the 
heart of thy seed" means, simply, descend- 
ants, and has reference to them as adults, 
we ask, How do you know? Where is the 
authority for saying so ? Did not the "little 
ones" stand before the Lord with the elders, 
captains and others, and enter into covenant 
with the Lord and into his oath? and was 
it not by forsaking the covenant that they 
were estranged from the Lord and became 
strangers in strange lands, according to the 
curses of the covenant? And was not the 
law, w T hich was to be " read before all Israel 
in their hearing," to be read to the little 
ones? "Gather the people together, men, 
and women, and children, and the stranger 
that is within thy gates, that they may hear 
and that they may learn, and fear the Lord 
your God, and observe to do all the words 
of this law : and their children, which have 
not known anything, may hear, and learn 
to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye 
live in the land whither ye go over Jordan 



72 Children in Christ. 

to possess it." (Dent. xxxi. 12.) Were 
they capable of all this, and yet not fit sub- 
jects for being circumcised in heart? Or, 
did the Lord embrace them in the covenant 
and have its seal placed upon them, and 
hold them responsible and visit the curses 
of a broken covenant upon them, without 
securing any of the blessings of the cove- 
nant to them? For it is evident that, if 
they did not enjoy spiritual blessings, many 
of them never realized any; for they were 
carried into captivity and suffered many 
things, and even death, without ever having 
an inheritance in the promised Canaan. 
"What then becomes of the promise and 
oath of the Almighty? "All the promises 
of God are in him (Christ) yea, and in 
him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." 
Now this covenant, St. Paul tells us (Gal. 
iii. 17), "was confirmed of God in Christ." 
It was, then, impossible, that it should fail 
in any part, or to any whom it embraced. 
It follows, therefore, that if the promise 
and covenant were carnal, and had refer- 
ence only to the earthly Canaan, all to whom 
the promise was given and who were em- 



The Promise and Covenant. 73 

braced in the covenant were actually set- 
tled in that land and received an inherit- 
ance there. Was this the case? Do the 
facts of history justify such a conclusion? 
Every one knows they do not. Not even 
Abraham ever received an "inheritance in 
it; no, not so much as to set his foot on." 
(Acts vii.) Has the promise of God failed? 
No; that is impossible. But it has most 
certainly failed if it was carnal, and had 
reference to the earthly Canaan only. 
What, then, is the conclusion? Necessarily 
this: The promise was spiritual, embracing 
Christ, and, in him, an inheritance in the 
heavenly Canaan, and circumcision was a 
seal of the righteousness necessary to such 
inheritance. 

If we admit that the requirements made 
in these passages upon the children are to 
be met in adult age, the argument loses 
none of its force. For, if they were not, 
as children, required to return unto the 
Lord, it was because they had not departed 
from him — had not forsaken the covenant; 
and, if they had not forsaken the covenant, 
they were still in it and entitled to all the 



74 Children in Christ. 

blessings secured by it Bat they could not 
be in the covenant unless they were em- 
braced in the atonement, upon which the 
covenant was made; and if embraced in 
the atonement, they were entitled to all the 
blessings resulting from it, until by personal 
transgression they forfeited them. That 
they were embraced in the covenant, is an 
undisputed, because an indisputable fact, 
and that the sign of circumcision was, by 
express command of God, placed upon 
them is equally undeniable, and St. Paul 
tells us that circumcision was a seal of right- 
eousness — the righteousness of faith. Now, 
it is evident that righteousness is not used 
here in the sense of right doing, active 
obedience — "works of righteousness which 
we have done;" but rather in the sense of 
justification, freedom from sin. It expresses 
a state of being — relation — rather than ac- 
tive service, as is evident from the whole 
argument of the apostle where the expres- 
sion is used. Abraham believed God, and 
it was counted to him for righteousness; 
i. e. , his faith was accepted instead of right 
doing, and he was recognized as sustaining 



The Promise and Covenant. 75 

the same relation to God as though he had 
never sinned — the same relation that was 
sustained by him, by virtue of the atone- 
ment, before he personally sinned, and that 
is sustained by every infant until it is sev- 
ered by personal transgression. This rela- 
tion is secured by and in Christ, who, though 
he "knew no sin, was made sin for us; that 
we might be made the righteousness of God 
in him," and who, therefore, is called "The 
Lord our righteousness." Circumcision was 
a seal of this righteousness, a sign of this 
relation to God in Christ, and as such was 
placed upon infants, that they might be 
recognized as entitled, by reason of this re- 
lation, to the temporal blessings promised 
in the covenant, and to the heavenly inher- 
itance of which the earthly Canaan was a 
type. 

But circumcision was not only a seal of 
righteousness; it was also a pledge upon 
the part of the circumcised, that they would 
keep the law of God, a sacred obligation, 
binding them to faithfulness in the service 
of God. The very fact that God, upon the 
basis of the atonement — the only ground 



76 Children in Christ. 

upon which he can be just and the justifier 
of them that believe — justified them, 
counted them righteous — brought them un- 
der obligation to serve him in the beauty 
of holiness, to do the whole will of God; 
and circumcision was a formal recognition 
of, and a solemn promise to discharge this 
obligation. One of the duties which, by 
entering into the covenant and taking its 
seal, they pledged themselves to discharge 
was, to place the seal of the covenant upon 
their infant children and train them to the 
observance of its requirements. So, if bap- 
tism is in any sense a covenant, binding 
those who receive it to the service of God 
— whether it come in the room of circum- 
cision or not — it is binding to the whole ex- 
tent of man's duty; and if it is his duty to 
train up his children " in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord," it is because God 
has claims upon them (the children) which 
can not be unless they are embraced in the 
atonement; and as the covenant is based 
upon the atonement and binding upon 
those only whom it embraces, it follows 
that children are of the covenant and en- 



The Promise and Covenant. 77 

titled to its seal, and that the parent, by the 
very terms of the covenant, pledges him- 
self in the act of receiving baptism to have 
his children baptized, and to train them to 
the observance of all its requirements. 



78 Children in Christ 



CHAPTER V. 

ISRAEL A TYPE OF THE CHURCH. 

In the providence of God the descend- 
ants of Abraham (Israel) were permitted to 
be held in bondage for many years by the 
Egyptians. In their bondage, their deliv- 
erance, their journeyings through the wil- 
derness to the promised Canaan, their trials, 
etc., they are recognized by all parties as a 
type of the Church under what is called 
the Christian dispensation. We believe 
they were more — that they were the Church 
of God, "the Church in the wilderness." 
But, admitting that they were only a type of 
the Church, infants were a part of that 
type, and the antitype, the Church under 
the Christian dispensation, must, if it an- 
swer the type, have infants in it also. Let 
us for a few moments consider the analogies 
between the two: Israel in bondage in 
Egypt represents man's bondage to sin. 



Israel a Type of the Church. 79 

Their helplessness, their inability to break 
the yoke and deliver themselves from that 
bondage, represents the utter helplessness 
of man, his inability to save himself from 
sin. Moses, who under God — being sent of 
him for this purpose — became their deliv- 
erer and leader, was a type of Christ, the 
Son of God, who was sent into the world 
to deliver man from the power and domin- 
ion of sin, and to lead him to the Canaan 
of rest in heaven, typified by the earthly 
Canaan. Moses was |>orn in Egypt, born 
of a woman who was in bondage to Egypt, 
but was never, personally, a slave; never 
served under the task-masters. So Jesus 
Christ was born of a woman, who, in com- 
mon with her race, had fallen under sin — 
"made of a woman, made under the law" — 
but never personally transgressed the law. 
Moses chose to suffer affliction with the peo- 
ple of God. Jesus Christ "took upon him 
the seed of Abraham." Moses, when he was 
sent to deliver Israel, wrought miracles to 
prove that he acted under divine authority. 
So also did Jesus, and appealed to his works 
in proof of his claim to being the Son of 



80 Children in Christ. 

God. Moses was sent to provide a way of 
escape, furnish proof that such provision 
was made, and proffer guidance to all who 
would submit to his leadership, but had no 
authority to compel submission. Jesus also 
provides a way of escape from sin, and 
proffers the "light of life" to all who will 
follow him, but does not compel disciple- 
ship. Moses would not consent to go with- 
out the children, but contended for all, 
young and old, sons and daughters, until 
Pharaoh said: "Let your little ones also go 
with you. " Christ, when those who brought 
little children to him, were rebuked, said: 
" Suffer the little children to come unto me 
and forbid them not, for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven." In both cases the will of 
adults was consulted, and evidence brought 
to bear upon their minds to produce con- 
viction of truth, while motives were offered 
to induce decision and action; but infants 
were unconditionally provided for, and their 
parents, their heaven-appointed guardians, 
were to carry them. 

Suppose the heads of families had left 
it optional with their infants whether they 



Israel a Type of the Church. 81 

would go or not, and utterly refused to take 
their "little ones," assigning as a reason 
that it would be "taking away their liber- 
ties," that they might not, when old enough 
to choose for themselves, want to go; or, 
if they did, would choose another mode of 
going, what would be thought of them ? Or, 
suppose a part of them had chosen thus to 
act, and gravely charged those who took 
their children with them with transgressing 
the order of God, and of Moses, their 
leader, with "kidnapping babies in their 
cradles," etc., saying there was no com- 
mand to take any one, but that they were to 
[ go, which implies volition, voluntary action! 
"Who would covet or envy such a historical 
record? 

Such a course, on the part of the Israel- 
ites, supposing it to have been practicable, 
would have effectually defeated the pur- 
pose of the Almighty and kept the seed of 
Abraham in perpetual bondage to the 
Egyptians. In like manner, the doctrine 
and practice of anti-pedobaptists antagon- 
ize the spread of scriptural holiness and 
forbid the universal reign of Christ on 
6 



82 Children in Christ. 

earth. As long as their theory and prac- 
tice prevail, there will, of necessity, be 
hearts unsubdued to Christ, and persons 
out of his church or kingdom. Again, the 
children of Israel were not out of the power 
of Egypt's king — were not separated from 
Egypt — until they crossed the Red Sea and 
"were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea." "Then sang Moses and 
the children of Israel this song unto the 
Lord, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for 
he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse 
and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 
The Lord is my strength, and he is become 
my salvation." Mark the successive steps 
in their history: They witness the miracu- 
lous* works of Moses, are convinced that 
he is sent of God, resolve to accept his lead- 
ership and depart from Egypt, gather up 
their effects and prepare for the journey, 
take their "little ones" and start for the 
promised Canaan; but there are no signs 
of joy and gladness until the water of bap- 
tism is "poured out" upon them, and they 
stand upon the other side of the boundary 
line which separates between them and the 



Israel a Type of the Church. 83 

place of their former bondage! Then the 
shout of triumph is raised, and the joy 
welling up in their hearts seeks expression 
in a song of praise to their deliverer. Is 
there no significance in all this? Is there 
nothing answering to it in the experience 
of Christians, and in the Church of which 
Israel was a type? In the very beginning 
of the gospel dispensation, on the day of 
Pentecost, when the disciples "were all 
with one accord in one place," and the 
promised "power from on high" was given 
to qualify them to preach the gospel "in 
all the world" and "to every creature/' 
"Peter, standing up with the eleven, began 
by showing the fulfillment of prophecy in 
Jesus Christ and the pouring out of the 
Spirit secured by Him." He showed "that 
God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye 
(the Jews) have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ. Now when they heard this, they 
were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and 
brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter 
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus 



84 Children in Christ. 

Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
For the promise is unto you, and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, even 
as many as the Lord our God shall call. 
And with many other words did he testify 
and exhort, saying, save yourselves from 
this untoward generation. Then they that 
gladly received the word were baptized, 
and they, continuing daily with one accord 
in the temple and in breaking bread from 
house to house, did eat their meat with 
gladness and singleness of heart, praising 
God and having favor with all the people. 
And the Lord added to the Church daily 
such as should be saved." 

Baptism is the visible sign by which the 
people of God are separated from the world 
and recognized as the followers of Jesus; 
and having determined to follow him 
through evil as well as good report, and 
having taken — with their children — the 
badge of discipleship, in baptism, they may 
well rejoice in their Leader and sing praises 
to their Deliverer. Israel was a type of the 
Church; all the Israelites were baptized, 



Israel a Type of the Church. 85 

"little ones" and all; and unless the Church 
is composed in part of children, the type 
has failed in a very important feature to 
find in her its antitype. The opposers of 
infant baptism demand a positive precept 
or an unmistakable example for the prac- 
tice. Here we present both: The Israelites 
were all baptized — men, women and chil- 
dren, and the apostle tells us that "all these 
things happened unto them for examples, 
and they are written for our admonition ;" 
which is equivalent to saying, follow the 
example in all that was right, and be 
warned against their wrongs by the conse- 
quences which they suffered. It is objected, 
however, that children are not mentioned 
in connection with the baptism, and that in 
the same way it may be proved that their 
cattle, bells, etc., were baptized, and that, 
therefore, we must practice the baptism of 
such things! This is too evidently a dodge 
to deserve attention, and would not be 
noticed here but for the fact that it is 
gravely urged even by learned opposers of 
infant baptism. As to the first part, it 
would be a sufficient reply to say, neither 



86 Children in Christ. 

are women mentioned in connection with 
the baptism as named by the apostle ; yet 
no one doubts that they were baptized. 
But, in addition, we remark that children, 
" little ones," are specifically mentioned in 
the transaction referred to by the apostle, 
and especially cared for throughout the en- 
tire history. As to the baptism of cattle, 
etc., it is wholly gratuitous, having neither 
reason nor revelation to support it. They 
are not alluded to by the apostle, and not 
even mentioned in the history as having 
crossed the Red Sea! "The children of 
Israel (were not infants children of Israel?) 
went into the midst of the sea upon the dry 
ground" — "walked upon dry land in the 
midst of the sea v and so passed over; but 
how the cattle were crossed we are not in- 
formed. We certainly can not suppose 
that they were mixed up promiscuously 
with the women and children. The apostle 
is talking about human beings, and says 
they "were all baptized;" and to base an 
objection upon a gratuitous guess about 
something not mentioned, is too childish 
and frivolous to deserve serious notice. It 



Israel a Type of the Church. 87 

only shows the weakness of the cause it is 
intended to support. 

They did take their cattle, however, and 
this fact is not without its significance, es- 
pecially w T hen we consider the reason as- 
signed for taking them: "And Moses said, 
Thou must give us also sacrifice and burnt- 
ofierings, that we may sacrifice unto the 
Lord our God. Our cattle also shall go 
with us, there shall not a hoof be left be- 
hind; for thereof must we take to serve the 
Lord our God; and we know not with what 
we must serve the Lord, until we come 
thither." (Exod. x. 25, 26.) He does not 
mention their personal, temporal wants; 
does not argue that they will need food and 
must take their flocks along to supply them- 
selves with meat; but, confident that if 
they serve God he will provide all things 
necessary, he is only concerned to provide 
for that service. This principle is recog- 
nized also by Jesus, his Antitype, when he 
says: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God 
and his righteousness, and all these things 
shall be added unto you;" and in apostolic 
times, when a man joined the Church, he 



88 Children in Christ. 

not only took his family — his household — 
with him, but his goods also : " Neither said 
any of them that aught of the things 
which he possessed was his own; but they 
had all things common." "Neither w T as 
there any among them that lacked;" for 
distribution was made unto every man ac- 
cording as he had need, thus keeping up 
the family idea with which the Church was 
organized in the family of Abraham, with 
whom the "everlasting covenant" was made. 
The same principle should be recognized 
and practiced upon still, by all followers of 
Christ, all members of the "household of 
faith." No Christian has a right to hold 
as his own the means with which God has 
blessed him, when any of the children of 
"Our Father" are in need. "Distribution 
to the necessity of saints" is one of the du- 
ties prescribed by St. Paul for those who 
would "be not conformed to this world;" 
based, too, upon the fact that "we, being 
many, are one body in Christ, and every 
one members one of another." Thus we 
see that, if the objector intends to deride 
the idea of taking property into the Church, 



Israel a Type of the Church. 89 

he opposes the plain teaching of the Bible. 
The fact is, when a man gives himself to 
the service of God, he ought, and must, if 
he would serve him successfully, consecrate 
all that he controls to that service; and all 
such, if personally interested in the salva- 
tion provided in Christ, should be sealed by 
the appointed ordinance of God. If, there- 
fore, infants are personally interested in the 
atonement — and, if not, on what ground 
can they be saved? — and parents have the 
right to control them, it can not be wrong 
to exercise that right in controlling them 
for God and their own good. And as bap- 
tism symbolizes the purifying influence of 
the Holy Ghost, which w r as secured by the 
atonement — without which no human being 
can be saved, and obligates all who receive 
it to " walk after the Spirit and not after 
the flesh," it can not be wrong in the par- 
ents to recognize, in the use of the symbol, 
the child's right and title to this cleansing, 
and the agent who performs it; nor to form- 
ally obligate him to render that service 
which is at once his duty and his interest. 
Admit that infants have an interest in the 



90 Children in Christ. 

atonement, that they are saved through the 
merits of Christ's death, and that parents 
have the right to control them, and it is 
impossible to prove that it is wrong to have 
them baptized — nay, it is impossible to avoid 
the conclusion that it is right. 

But it is not only the right of the parent 
to control the child, but it is his absolute 
duty to do so; and the reason assigned by 
God himself for selecting Abraham through 
whom to bless the world is, "For I know 
him, that he will command his children and 
household after him, and they shall keep 
the way of the Lord, to do justice and 
judgment; that the Lord may bring upon 
Abraham that which he hath spoken of 
him." Here we have not only a recogni- 
tion of Abraham's duty to command his 
children, and the fact that the Lord knew 
that he would discharge that duty, but 
much more: It is clearly intimated that 
the fulfillment of the promise in blessing 
"all the nations of the earth/' depended 
upon it. "That the Lord may bring upon 
Abraham that which he hath spoken of 
him," implies that it is a condition of and 



Israel a Type of the Church. 91 

means to accomplish the end. It was not 
enough that Abraham should "keep the 
way of the Lord," his children must do the 
same; and in order to this they must receive 
the sign of circumcision/' a seal of the 
righteousness of faith," and be commanded 
after their father "to do justice and judg- 
ment/' Nor was this duty, to command 
the children, limited to Abraham and in- 
tended to cease with him; it was to be 
perpetuated through all succeeding genera- 
tions, and for the same reason, "that the 
Lord may bring upon Abraham that which 
he hath spoken of him." That all parents 
were not as faithful as Abraham, may be, 
and doubtless is, true; but that the duty 
was equally binding upon all, is what none 
can reasonably doubt. The whole history 
of the Jewish people from Abraham to the 
coming of Christ furnishes proof of the 
fact, and we need not consume time in 
enumerating arguments in its support. 

Besides, the very nature of the relations 
existing between God and his people, and 
between parents and children, make it a 
necessity. 



92 Children in Christ. 

The relation sustained by Abraham to 
God was the same that lias been, is, and 
must be sustained by Christians in every 
period of the world's history through all 
generations of men; and the relation of 
parents to children is, and must continue to 
be, the same while human nature remains 
unchanged; and as the duty of parents to 
children grows out of these relations, it 
must of necessity continue the same. If, 
therefore, it was the duty of Abraham to 
place the " seal of the righteousness of 
faith" upon his children, and to "com- 
mand" them "after him" in the service of 
God, it follows, unavoidably, that it is the 
duty of all parents to do the same. And 
if it be admitted that baptism is, as circum- 
cision was, "a seal of the righteousness of 
faith," that it is a symbol or sign of the 
purifying influence of the Holy Spirit, 
which is the circumcision of the heart, by 
the irresistible force of logic the right and 
duty of infant baptism are established. 

But w T e were considering Israel as only a 
type of the Church; and in so doing the 
argument loses none of its force. For if 



Israel a Type of the Church. 93 

the Jews be regarded simply as a nation, 
and circumcision as a national seal, and 
sign and pledge of temporal blessings, seal- 
ing in covenant the promise to the earthly 
Canaan; still, if they, in that capacity, were 
a type of the Church, and the land of Ca- 
naan a type of the heavenly Canaan, the 
rest that remaineth to the people of God, 
children constituted a part of the nation, 
were interested in the promise, received the 
seal of the covenant and entered into the 
promised Canaan; and if the Church be 
the antitype, the membership of children 
must of necessity be recognized — which 
can be done only in baptism. It is ad- 
mitted by all that children dying in infancy 
do enter upon the promised Canaan — are 
saved in heaven; but unless they are em- 
braced in the promise, this can not be; and 
if embraced in the promise, they are en- 
titled to the seal of the covenant securing 
that promise, and it is absolute injustice to 
deprive them of it, or withhold it from 
them. 

Has the promise of God failed? or has it 
been so fully accomplished that there is no 



94 Children in Christ. 

longer any promise? That it has failed, 
none will be so bold as to assert; and if it 
has ceased because fully accomplished, on 
what basis and by what authority is sal- 
vation offered to sinners? It was upon 
the basis of this promise and by the au- 
thority of God, that Peter, after the com- 
ing of Christ, the promised seed in whom 
all the nations of the earth were to be 
blessed, offered the blessing of salvation 
"first to the Jews." (Acts iii. 19-26.) That 
it had direct reference to the pardon of sin 
is clearly stated. "Repent ye, therefore, 
and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out." That the blotting out of sifts 
was through Jesus Christ none will deny; 
that he was not another or a new Savior, is 
proved (if proof were needed) by the dec- 
laration of Peter that, "he shall send Jesus 
Christ, which before was preached unto 
you;" and that the doctrine preached by 
Peter was not a new doctrine, is seen in 
the fact that it was that " which God hath 
spoken by the mouth of all his holy proph- 
ets since the world began." Hence the 
apostle says : " Ye are the children of the 



Israel a Type of the Church 95 

prophets and of the covenant which God 
made with our fathers, saying unto Abra- 
ham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds 
of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, 
God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent 
him to bless you in turning away every one 
of you from his iniquities." Here we have 
the original promise and the Abrahamic 
covenant recognized as still in full force 
after the commission was given to "go teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost," and after the pentecostal baptism, 
by which they were qualified for the work; 
and that, too, without the slightest intima- 
tion that there was to be a change in the 
law of membership — that infants were no 
longer to be recognized as among the Israel 
of God. Or, if you please, that the Anti- 
type in this respect was not to answer to 
the type. 

Look at this for a moment: "When God 
made promise to Abraham and entered into 
covenant with him, saying, "for a father of 
many nations have I made thee," he ap- 
pointed a seal to that covenant, and gave 



96 Children in Christ. 

special directions that it should be placed 
upon children. The practice then inaug- 
urated was kept up by the covenant people 
of God until the manifestation of the prom- 
ised seed, in whom all the nations were to 
be blessed, and the commission to preach 
the gospel in all the world and to every 
creature, was given in fulfillment of that 
promise and while the covenant, with its 
seal, was still in full force. 2sot only so, 
but the commission is given in almost the 
precise language of the covenant-promise: 
u Go teach all nations," and must have been 
understood to embrace children; for there 
had been no intimation given that they 
were to be excluded. On the contrary, 
Christ had said: " Suffer the little children 
to come unto me, and forbid them not, for 
of such is the kingdom of heaven." Evi- 
dently the kingdom which he came to es- 
tablish, and of which he declared himself 
the King. 

To understand the teaching of the Scrip- 
tures, we must take them in their connec- 
tion; and to understand the plan of salva- 
tion, we must trace its development as it is 



Israel a Type of the Church. 97 

gradually unfolded in the divinely inspired 
oracles of God ; and to do this, we must 
take the whole of these oracles, the sum of 
which constitutes the Bible, Old and New 
Testaments. These contain the word of 
God and are a unit. They can not be in 
conflict, the one with the other. The New 
Testament can not teach anything in con- 
flict with the Old. Whether, therefore, we 
regard the Israel of the Old Testament as 
the Church of God, or only as a type of the 
Church, the results are the same. If, as the 
Church, infant membership is beyond ques- 
tion ; and if, as a type of the Church, the 
conclusion, that infants have a right to 
membership, is irresistible; if Israel, as a 
kingdom, was a type of the " kingdom of 
God," we are not only compelled by the 
force of logic to accept the membership of 
infants, but we have the authority of the 
King himself for saying: "Of such is the 
kingdom of God " 
7 



98 Children in Christ 



CHAPTER VI. 

PROPHECY. 

The law of circumcision was in force un- 
til the day of Jesus Christ, and, as long as 
in force, was, by divine authority, binding 
upon infants. Under it the plan of salva- 
tion, announced in the original promise and 
renewed to Abraham in the covenant which 
was "confirmed of God in Christ," was un- 
folded and developed. All the typical sac- 
rifices and services of the Old Testament, 
as well as all its prophecies, were made, per- 
formed and uttered under the seal of cir- 
cumcision. It was, as we have seen, spir- 
itual in its significance, pointing to Christ 
who should be cut off for the people, and 
binding all who were circumcised to the 
love and service of God. Considering 
Israel as a type of the Church under what 
is called the Christian dispensation, we 



Prophecy. 99 

found nothing in their history from which 
it could be inferred that infants were, after 
the coming of Christ, to be no longer rec- 
ognized as among the people of God — no 
longer embraced in the covenant. We now 
inquire, is there anything in the utterances 
of the prophets foretelling such a change? 
This may seem, to some, a strange way of 
approaching the subject. They may be dis- 
posed to ask, " Why not inquire for prophe- 
cies specifically pointing out — foretelling— 
the church membership of infants under the 
Christian dispensation?" We answer, for 
the very good reason that prophecy (in the 
sense in which the word is here used) is the 
foretelling of future events, and not the re- 
lation of facts already existing. If the cov- 
enant-relation of children to God had been 
a thing unknown in the days of the proph- 
ets, and God had intended to inaugurate it 
at or after the coming of Christ, and place 
the seal of the covenant upon them, it is 
reasonable to suppose that he would have 
intimated it to his prophets, and through 
them to the people. Had such been the 
case, in the absence of all prophecy, in type 



100 Children in Christ. 

or otherwise, nothing short of a specific en- 
actment upon the part of Jesus Christ, 
either in person or through his inspired 
apostles, could warrant or justify the prac- 
tice of infant membership. 

The Israelites were the recognized people 
of God; his peculiar people, raised up by 
him from Abraham, with whom he made 
and confirmed the covenant which was to 
be an everlasting covenant, and w T hich con- 
tained the promise of blessings to all na- 
tions. They had the seal of the covenant 
upon them — placed upon them in infancy. 
The very name they bore was memorial 
and significant. It was commemorative of 
the struggle and triumph of their father 
Jacob, who wrestled with the angel and 
prevailed with God: "Thy name shall be 
called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a 
prince thou hast power with God and with 
men, and hast prevailed." It means a 
prince of God, and signifies that prevalence 
in prayer which characterizes the true peo- 
ple of God. The name is worthy of its 
origin, though not all who wear it are 
worthy of the name; for they are not all 



Prophecy. 101 

Israel who are of Israel. The seal of the 
covenant, which was the means of perpet- 
uating this name, and compliance with the 
terms of which would ever secure the char- 
acter which the name implies, was also sig- 
nificant of purity of character, being a sign 
of the cutting oft* of their sins. Infants 
were embraced in the covenant, inherited 
the name, and were sealed with the sign. 
Surely, if God intended to introduce a new 
order of things and exclude all infants from 
the "everlasting covenant," no longer al- 
lowing the seal of the covenant to be placed 
upon them, we may expect to find some in- 
timation of such purpose, either in the his- 
tory of his dealings with his people, or in 
the prophecies which look to the accom- 
plishment of his purpose. We have failed 
to find it in the history. On the contrary, 
we have found the interests of the "little 
ones" carefully guarded and their identity 
with the people of G-od recognized at every 
step. Shall we be more successful in search- 
ing the prophets? We shall see. We do 
not say that there is nothing in prophecy 
relating to the membership of children; 



102 Children in Christ. 

but only that their covenant relation being 
a recognized fact among the Jews, we are 
not to expect such prophecy as would be 
necessary with reference to the introduction 
of something new; and that the non-recog- 
nition of children, if practiced by divine 
authority, is certainly peculiar to the New 
Testament dispensation, and must, there- 
fore, look for support to some special proph- 
ecy, which can not otherwise be fulfilled, 
and which is sanctioned by the teachings 
and practice of Christ and his apostles. 
The best evidence that no such prophecy 
exists is found in the fact that no opposer 
of the right of infants to church member- 
ship and baptism has ever been able to 
point it out, nor even professed to have 
found it. Why is this? Is it because 
children are wholly ignored by the proph- 
ets? not mentioned by them at all? Cer- 
tainly not. In the prophecies, as in the 
history, children are included in ";he gen- 
eral term, Israel ; and it is not even possi- 
ble that they can be understood otherwise. 
They prophesied, it is true, of a coming 
Deliverer; but not as though he did not 



Prophecy. 108 

already exist, or was not already present 
with his people. 

His coining presupposed his existence, and 
the prophecy itself evidenced his presence. 
Indeed, it is utterly impossible to account 
for or believe in the truth of prophecy, 
without admitting the divine presence. If 
it be said that it was the presence of the 
Spirit, and not of Christ, we answer: It 
was the presence of Christ as certainly as, 
and in the same sense that Christ is present 
with his people now. When we read the 
declaration of Christ, "Lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world," 
we do not suppose that he means his man- 
ifested, bodily, physical presence; but only 
that he is spiritually present. If the prom- 
ise of the divine presence is to be confined 
to the bodily presence of the manifested Son 
of God, then it must be confined to a very 
few, and for a very short time. To speak of 
prophecy — as we fear is too often done — as 
though it had exclusive reference to the pe- 
riod of Christ's incarnation, is to do great 
violence to the truth, and to render it im- 



104 Children in Christ. 

possible ever to have a proper understand- 
ing of its teachings. 

The promise renewed to Abraham and 
secured in the covenant, was itself a proph- 
ecy foretelling future events, including the 
incarnation of Christ; but certainly it did 
not have exclusive reference to the birth of 
Jesus, his life, death and resurrection. It 
included, and of necessity, present blessings 
and a continuation of them to the coming 
of the promised seed, and on to the perfect 
accomplishment of all that was contained 
in the promise. These present blessings, 
spiritual and temporal, were not only nec- 
essary to the accomplishment of the proph- 
ecy looking to the birth of Jesus, his death 
etc.; but were also the results of the one 
atoning sacrifice which he offered for the 
sins of the whole world. He was "as a 
Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world." Prophecy itself was one of these 
resultant blessings, and is to-day the strong- 
est evidence that the promised Redeemer 
was himself the Promiser, and that he was 
present fulfilling his promise. Prophecy is 
pre-recorded history; t. e. } history recorded 



Prophecy. 105 

before it is enacted or transpires, and is con- 
stantly changing into history as it is being 
fulfilled. That which was prophecy be- 
comes history, without in the least affecting 
the facts, which belong equally to both. 

It is not, however, necessary that all the 
facts of history be foretold in detail to con- 
stitute prophecy. This would be, unless 
the free agency of man were interfered with, 
to defeat itself; in other words, to destroy 
prophecy where the agency of man is in- 
volved in its fulfillment. We have said 
that, in prophecy, as in history, infants are 
embraced in the general term, Israel, or 
whatever other term may be used to desig- 
nate the people of God. Take one exam- 
ple: In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis it 
is prophesied that the "seed" of Abraham 
shall serve in bondage four hundred years, 
"and afterward shall come out with great 
substance/' Here not a word is said of 
infants, except as they are embraced in the 
term "seed." When this prophecy becomes 
history, it is seed : "Now the sojourning of 
the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, 
was four hundred^and thirty years. And it 



106 Children in Christ. 

came to pass, at the end of four hundred 
and thirty years, that all the hosts of the 
Lord went out from the land of Egypt." 
(Exod. xii. 40, 41.) The "seed" of Abra- 
ham, "the children of Israel" and "the 
hosts of the Lord" are then, in these pas- 
sages, synonymous terms — what one means, 
they all mean. Do they include infants? 
Every one knows that but for infants the 
prophecy never could have been fulfilled. 
Besides, in the detailed account of the 
deliverance of the "children of Israel/' the 
u little ones" are specifically mentioned, as 
we have elsewhere shown, and the fact 
stated that the seal of the covenant which 
constituted them the people of God was 
placed upon them. Not only are infants 
included in these general terms, but all 
prophecy, of a general character, looking 
to the establishment of a peculiar people 
unto the Lord, separated from the rest of 
mankind, is couched in language of a sim- 
ilar character: "Israel," "the house of 
Israel," "my people," "my flock," "my 
sheep," are all terms used to distinguish 
the covenant people of God — always refer- 



Prophecy. 107 

ring to the Abrahamic covenant — from the 
rest of mankind, and in the Old Testament, 
as the history shows, always including in- 
fants. The majority of them — nearly all — 
are in the New Testament applied to the 
Church, and in such connections as to show 
beyond all doubt that the prophets applied 
them to the same. Now, if the Lord, 
through his inspired prophets, used such 
terms to distinguish his peculiar people as 
by his own showing included infants, and 
extended their use and application to the 
Church after the resurrection and ascension 
of Jesus Christ, without any intimation 
that they should be excluded, is not the con- 
clusion irresistible that they are included 
still? 

But the evidence is, if possible, more con- 
clusive than this. Prophecy does not nec- 
essarily detail all the facts of history; but 
history, to be the fulfillment of prophecy, 
must contain all that is specified in proph- 
ecy. The Lord, through Jeremiah, speak- 
ing of the time when Israel " shall serve 
the Lord their God, and David their King, 
whom I will raise up unto them," says: 



108 Children in Christ. 

" Their children also shall be as aforetime, 
and their congregation shall be established 
before me." (Jer. xxx. 20.) That " David 
their King, whom the Lord would " raise 
up," and whom Israel was to serve, is Jesus 
Christ, will not be questioned. Now, chil- 
dren "aforetime" were in covenant relation 
with God, and numbered among his peo- 
ple, and the prophecy specifies that they 
shall be "as aforetime." The history there- 
fore must show the recognition of the same 
relation, which can be done only in bap- 
tism. 

Again, " Behold, the Lord God will come 
with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule 
for him: behold, his reward is with him, 
and his work before him. He shall feed 
his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather 
the lambs with his arm, and carry them in 
his bosom, and shall gently lead them that 
are with young." (Isaiah xl. 10, 11.) In 
this passage — which no one doubts refers to 
Jesus — the Savior is spoken of as a shep- 
herd, and his people as his flock. This 
flock is composed in part of lambs, which 
must mean children, little children, for they 



Prophecy. 109 

are gathered with the arms and carried in 
the bosom. If the flock is not the Church, 
we would thank some one to tell us what it 
is; or, what i* the same, if the Church is 
not the flock of Christ, where is his flock? 
of what ia it composed? As if to show the 
fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus called 
himself tho true shepherd, took little chil- 
dren in his arms and blessed them, and 
said, "of such is the kingdom of God." 

"True," says the objector ; "but he did not 
baptize them." No; Jesus did not baptize 
them." No; Jesus did not baptize any, in- 
fants nor adults. But can any man believe 
that the apostles would have refused to bap- 
tize an adult, if Jesus had told them he had 
been converted and become as a little child? 
"Except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven." (Matt, xviii. 3.) It 
is not necessary that it should be stated 
that they were baptized. If it be shown 
that they were in the Church, it is certain 
that they were baptized; if, as all anti-pedo- 
baptists teach, baptism is essential to church- 
membership. It is said, Acts ii. 47: "And 



110 Children in Christ. 

the Lord added to the Church daily such as 
should be saved." It is not said, they were 
baptized ; yet no one doubts that they were. 
JS"or does anybody believe that the Lord 
baptized them, except with the Holy Ghost, 
though he added them to the Church. The 
prophet plainly teaches that infants are a 
part of the flock of Christ; and Jesus says 
they are of the kingdom; now, unless the 
flock and kingdom are something outside 
of and distinct from the Church, they are 
certainly in the Church; and, if in the 
Church, are baptized or ought to be. 

When special reference is made by the 
prophets to the bringing in of the Gentiles, 
they do not forget the " little ones:" "Thus 
saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up 
mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my 
standard to the people: and they shall 
bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daugh- 
ters shall be carried upon their shoulders." 
(Isaiah xlix. 22.) Let the reader try to 
conceive of this prophecy as being fulfilled 
in bringing the Gentiles into the Church, 
with the idea that children are not to be 
admitted, and see what he will make of it ! 



Prophecy. Ill 

Or, if he does not think that it means that, 
let him try to find its fulfillment, or show 
how it can be fulfilled, consistently with 
such an idea. 

Again, "Awake, O sword, against my 
Shepherd, and against the man that is my 
fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the 
Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: 
and I will turn mine hand upon the little 
ones." (Zech. xiii. 7.) Here the same 
Great Shepherd, who commanded the seal 
of the covenant to be placed upon infants, 
when the promise was given to Abraham, 
shows his tender care for the " little ones;" 
now that, being manifested in the flesh, he 
is smitten and his sheep are scattered. Let 
it be remembered that these prophecies were 
uttered by men brought up in the Church, 
and under the inspiration of the Spirit of 
God, who had taught them to command 
their children after them in his service, that 
it was by means of this special training of 
children, from their earliest infancy, under 
the seal of the covenant, that bound them 
to that service that the prophecies were to 
be fulfilled and the promise verified; that 



112 



Children in Christ. 



the presence of the promised One was nec- 
essary to the very existence of the proph- 
ecy, and at every stage of its development 
till fully accomplished; that the grand de- 
sign was, the glory of God in the salvation 
of the people; and that salvation was as 
real then as now, and by the same Savior 
and to the same class of persons, and the 
membership of infants will follow as cer- 
tainly and as necessarily as light accompa- 
nies the rising of the sun. 



The Church— When Organized? 113 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE CHURCH — WHEN ORGANIZED? 

The opposers of infant baptism find it 
necessary to deny the existence of the 
Church previous to the coming of Jesus 
Christ. The reason is obvious: If the 
Church existed before and continued after 
the coming and crucifixion of the Savior, it 
being undeniable that infants were recog- 
nized as members before and up to the time 
of Jesus, they must find a positive law in 
the New Testament excluding them. On 
the other hand, assuming that the Church 
began to exist sometime during the life of 
Jesus or in apostolic days, they demand a 
positive command ;n the New Testament 
for receiving and baptizing them. There 
seems to be a vague, undefined idea in their 
minds to the effect that God used the pa- 
triarchs and prophets — the whole Israel of 
8 



114 Children in Christ. 

God from Abraham to the coming of Christ 
— to develop a plan of salvation and furnish 
a basis for the organization of a Church for 
the benefit of those who should live after 
the crucifixion, without taking them into 
any sacred relation to himself, or appoint- 
ing any means by which they might recog- 
nize themselves and each other as the peo- 
ple of God and pledge themselves to faith- 
fulness in his service. The idea is absurd, 
and the formal utterance of it would be an 
insult to God and a reflection upon the 
common sense of man. They dare not ad- 
mit it to themselves; and yet it underlies 
their every argument (?) against the right 
of infants to baptism. Think of it: They 
will allow God to select a man from whom 
to raise up a family, a nation; and to de- 
posit w T ith him the promise of blessings to 
ail (other) nations; enter into covenant with 
him, conditioning the fulfillment of the 
promise on the faith and faithfulness of him 
and of his descendants — to which conditions 
they pledge themselves in accepting the 
seal of the covenant — y6t will not allow 
them to be recognized as the people of God, 



The Church — When Organized? 115 

in a spiritual sense, because, forsooth, he 
has commanded the seal of the covenant to 
be placed upon infants ! He can claim them 
as his, call them "My people;" but he must 
be careful not to mean that they are really 
his in any such sense as would constitute 
them the saved of the Lord, or make the 
impression that they are his Church; for 
that would be to recognize the wicked lit- 
tle infants as in his gracious favor and heirs 
to a heavenly inheritance! He may pro- 
tect them against their enemies, supply 
their temporal wants, follow them with his 
presence, require them to love Him with all 
their heart, soul, mind and strength, and 
punish them for failure to meet the require- 
ment; but must not recognize them as his 
spiritual people; for that would be to con- 
stitute them the Church and recognize the 
"little depraved vipers" (infants) as mem- 
bers! In a word, he may do with them and 
for them any and everything he may please, 
provided he does not make of them a 
Church; for it will never do to have a 
Church with babies in it! 
However unreasonable all this is, it is 



116 Children in Christ. 

necessary to justify the exclusion of infants 
from the Church now, and this necessity 
is a sufficient reason for the belief, as infants 
must be kept out! And yet, if it were ad- 
mitted, or could be proved, that the Church 
began to exist in apostolic days, the fact 
would still remain that that which was con- 
fessedly a type of the Church was composed, 
in part, of infants; and therefore the Church, 
the antitype, if it answer to the type, must 
include infants also. Thus we see that anti- 
pedobaptists are bound, in reason and jus- 
tice, to show either a positive law in the 
New Testament excluding them, or that the 
organization of the Church was such as to 
necessitate their exclusion. But what is the 
truth in the case? This is all we are con- 
cerned to know. Either there was or there 
was not a Church in the world previous to 
the coming of Christ in the flesh. If there 
was, then either that Church was destroyed 
or it was perpetuated and exists at the pres- 
ent day. If there was not, then either it 
began to exist some time after the birth of 
Jesus or it does not yet exist. But it is ad- 
mitted by all that God has a Church in the 



The Church — When Organized 1 ? 117 

world now. It follows, therefore, either 
that it existed before, or that it began to ex- 
ist after the birth of Jesus. If it began 
after, then God w T as four thousand years 
without a Church in the world. This is 
unreasonable; nevertheless, if the Bible so 
teach, we will accept it. We inquire, then, 
what does the Bible teach? When does it 
say the Church began? or does it say at all? 
Before these questions can be answered, 
it will be necessary to determine what the 
Church is. The Church is the body of 
Christ (Eph. i. 22, 23) ; I e., they who stand 
in a saved relation to God in Christ consti- 
tute the Church ; and a visible recognition 
of this relation, by the use of the sacra- 
mental sign of it, constitutes the visible 
Church, about which we are now speaking. 
If this definition be accepted, the contro- 
versy is at an end; unless it be contended 
that before the coming of the Son of God 
in the flesh men were saved independently 
of Christ and the atonement; for nothing 
is more certain than that men were saved 
and that this fact was signified by the sacra- 
ment appointed of God, viz.: Circumcision, 



118 Children in Christ. 

which was a sign and seal of the righteous- 
ness of faith. And it is equally certain that 
this sign and seal was placed upon infants. 

But leaving the reader to define the 
Church, as, guided by the Word of God, he 
may think proper, we would ask him, when 
he has defined it to his own satisfaction, to 
turn to the Bible and point out the chapter 
and verse that tell where and when the 
Church w x as organized — began to exist. If 
the Church is peculiarly a New Testament 
institution, it certainly had its origin in the 
days of Jesus, or during apostolic times; v 
and, if so, it ought to be an easy matter to 
find where and when it was instituted, or- 
ganized, or in some way began to be. But 
is it so? Can any man point to a single 
passage in the ~New Testament from which 
it can reasonably, nay, even possibly, be 
inferred that the Church was instituted — 
brought into existence anywhere or at any 
time after the birth of Jesus? Can any 
point to a period in the life of Jesus, before 
which it is certain, or even probable, that 
the Church did not exist ? 

There is but one passage from which, with 



The Church — When Organized? 119 

any degree of plausibility, such an inference 
can be drawn, viz.: Matt. xvi. 18 — " Thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my Church. " Because the Savior here says, 
"1-will build my Church," it is concluded 
by some that there was no Church yet in 
existence. If the word build meant to 
originate or begin to make something, and 
meant nothing else, this conclusion would 
be legitimate. But if this were the case, 
our difficulties would be increased, not di- 
minished. Indeed, with such a definition 
of the word it would be impossible to un- 
derstand many passages of Scripture. Take 
an example: "Then had the churches rest 
throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and 
Samaria, and were edified (built — the same 
word), and walking in the fear of the Lord, 
and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were 
multiplied." (Acts ix. 29.) Here "the 
churches had rest," and were afterward 
builded. Were they made, originated, after 
they had rest? Again, in 1 Cor. xiv., 3d, 
4th and 5th verses, the same word occurs 
four times, and in every instance is rendered 
edify. To render it build, with the idea of 



120 Children in Christ. 

originating, would destroy the sense. Let 
us try it: "But lie that prophesieth, speak- 
eth unto men to edification" (to building). 
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, 
edifieth (buildeth) himself. ,? Is he self- 
created? and to create self, does he speak 
before he has an existence? But he that 
prophesieth, edifieth (buildeth) the Church" 
— just what Christ said he would do. Was 
it to originate something? In these and 
many other passages where the word oc- 
curs, it not only does not mean to origin- 
ate, but necessarily implies that the thing 
to be built already exists. To build, ac- 
cording to the New Testament use of the 
word, is to establish, to edify, to embellish, 
to amplify, etc.; and this is what the Sav- 
ior said he would do, what he has done, and 
is doing to his Church. 

Supposing him to mean, when he said, 
"I will build my Church," that he would in- 
stitute, organize a Church — something that 
then and previous to that time had no ex- 
istence — we ask, when and where did the 
Church begin? A short time after this — 
only a few days — we find him instructing 



The Church — When Organized? 121 

his disciples in the case of an offending 
brother, who would not hear private re- 
proof, to "tell it unto the church." Here 
he speaks of the Church, not as something 
to be originated hereafter, but as already 
existing. When and where was it insti- 
tuted? These are the only two places in 
all the four gospels where the word church 
is used. Is it probable, or even possible, 
that the thing designated by it was spoken 
of but twice by Jesus, and never by the 
evangelists in all their intercourse with him, 
as recorded in the gospels? Who can be- 
lieve it? And yet it is even so, unless it 
was called by some other name. "The 
kingdom of heaven" is frequently spoken 
of, and, in parables, likened unto many 
things; but if the kingdom of heaven is 
not the Church, but something distinct 
from it, what and where is the kingdom of 
heaven? And if the Church and kingdom 
are one, it existed and was talked much 
about before the Savior said, "I will build 
my Church," and was composed in part of 
little children. Be this as it may, it is ab- 
solutely certain that the gospels give no 



122 Children in Christ. 

account of the beginning of the Church, 
neither by that name nor by any other; 
neither as having been organized nor as 
something yet to be instituted. 

The next occurrence of the word church 
is in the second of Acts, where it is said, 
" The Lord added to the church daily such 
as should be saved/' without one word 
about its organization, or a hint as to when 
it began to be. So in Acts v. 11, it is said, 
" Great fear came upon all the church/' but 
no allusion is made to the time of its origin. 
If it began after Christ said, "I will build 
my Church," and its organization was such 
as to exclude infants, it is passing strange 
that no allusion is made to these important 
facts in its history. 

The word church is next used by Stephen 
in his speech before the council to which he 
was accused of speaking "blasphemous 
words against Moses and against God," re- 
corded in Acts vii. In his defense he be- 
gins with the appearance of "the God of 
glory unto our father Abraham," and re- 
counts in brief the history of the promised 
seed under "the covenant of circumcision," 



The Church — When Organized ? 123 

through the patriarchs and Joseph to their 
bondage in Egypt; their deliverance by the 
hand of God through the leadership of 
Moses; their journeyings through the wil- 
derness, and on to the building of the tem- 
ple by Solomon. He then tells them, "The 
Most High dwelleth not in temples made 
with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven 
is my throne, and earth is my footstool ;" 
intending, no doubt, to remind them that, 
while houses are built for the worship of 
God, his dwelling-place is the heart of the 
worshiper. Because they had failed to rec- 
ognize this truth, he charges them with be- 
ing "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart 
and ears," and with "resisting the Holy 
Ghost;" and, as the result, that they had 
"been the betrayers and murderers of the 
Just One." It was not for want of instruc- 
tion, but because, having " received the law 
by the disposition of angels," they "had 
not kept it." It w r as in this speech that, re- 
ferring to Moses, Stephen said: "This is he 
that was in the church in the wilderness." 
(Acts vii. 28.) Read the whole chapter. 
We have been thus particular because we 



124 Children in Christ. 

wish to call the reader's attention to the 
circumstances under which the word was 
used, and the application that was made of 
it. We do this because while the opposers 
of infant membership can see the Church 
in every other place where the word is ap- 
plied to the people of God, in this they can 
see only a congregation — a political assem- 
bly. The reason is obvious: There were 
children in that assembly; and, though they 
were " little ones," the eye of prejudice 
magnifies them to such huge proportions as 
to obscure, to obliterate the Church of God! 
Let us note the circumstances surrounding 
Stephen. He was a disciple of Jesus, rec- 
ognizing him as the Christ, the Messiah of 
the Old Testament Scriptures. He believed 
the Scriptures, and therefore believed in 
Jesus. He was a Jew; he had not changed 
his religion, but only kept pace with the 
truth. The Scriptures promised a Re- 
deemer; the promise was fulfilled in the 
person of Jesus, and he accepted him. He 
realized the promise, but did not abandon 
the faith. Many of his brethren, the Jews, 
who had cherished the same hope, inspired 



The Church — When Organized? 125 

by faith in the same promise, rejected Jesus, 
the promised Redeemer, and, in so doing, 
abandoned the faith and gave up the relig- 
ion of the Scriptures. Among them were 
most of the leaders, prominent men, officers 
in the church. The council before which 
he was brought for trial was composed of 
these. It was a church trial. He was 
charged with " blasphemy against Moses 
and against God." If the charges had been 
sustained, he would, and ought to, have 
been expelled. But we are told that "they 
suborned men, * * * and set up false 
witnesses" against him, "which said, This 
man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous 
words against this holy place and the law: 
For we have heard him say, that this Jesus 
of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and 
shall change the customs which Moses de- 
livered unto us." The issue was fairly 
made. Stephen represented one party; the 
council and his accusers the other. If Jesus 
was not the Christ, but an impostor seeking 
to change the religion of God's people, then 
Stephen and his party, in becoming his dis- 
ciples, abandoned their religion, and ought 



126 Children in Christ. 

to have been excommunicated. But if he 
was the Christ, fulfilling prophecy, and not 
changing their religion, the council and 
Stephen's accusers, with all the rejecters of 
Jesus, were apostates from the true faith, 
and no longer the proper representatives of 
the Church. In short, the covenant people 
of God — the Church— were divided on the 
question of the Messiahship of Jesus. Both 
parties could not be right— one must. Jesus 
was the Christ, or he was not. If he was, 
the Scriptures taught that he was; and they 
who believed in him continued to believe the 
Scriptures, and, in accepting him, followed 
their teachings — continued in their relig- 
ion, and remained the people of God, the 
Church. Stephen recognized this fact, and 
appealed to the Scriptures, recognized by 
both parties as authority, in his defense. 
He began with the promise given in cove- 
nant to Abraham, and gave a synoptical 
history of its development to the time of 
David and Solomon, ending with the build- 
ing of the temple; but dwelt particularly 
on Moses, against whom and God he was 
charged with speaking blasphemous wor Is. 






The Church — When Organized? 127 

He reminded them that Moses was sent by 
God, "to be a ruler and a deliverer by the 
hand of the angel which appeared to him 
in the bush" of his people, who were in 
Egypt; that "they refused" him, "saying, 
Who made thee a ruler and a Judge?" that 
"he brought them out, after that he had 
shewed wonders and signs in the land of 
Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wil- 
derness forty years." And then — after 
setting forth the fact that he was "a 
ruler and a deliverer" sent of God, and 
that they to whom he was sent "refused" 
him — he said, " This is that Moses, which 
said unto the children of Israel, A prophet 
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you 
of your brethren, like unto me; him shall 
ye hear." 

Now, if this prophecy was fulfilled in 
Jesus — if he was the prophet to be raised 
up like unto Moses — he could not teach con- 
trary to Moses. Or, if Jesus introduced a 
new religion and instituted a new Church, 
he could not be that prophet; for he was to 
be of the " brethren, " and "like unto" 
Moses. He was not to form a new brother- 



128 Children in Christ. 

hood, but was himself to be of the breth- 
ren, of the children of Israel. He was not 
only to be of them, but raised up unto 
them, " a ruler and a deliverer" to them. 
Stephen immediately adds, "This is he that 
was in the church in the wilderness with the 
angel which spake to him in the Mount 
Sinai, and with our fathers: who received 
the lively oracles to give unto us." The 
same "lively oracles'" received by Moses in 
the mount for the government of Israel, 
were to be "given unto us;'' and to them 
Stephen appealed in support of both his 
faith and practice. 

The people whose faith they embody, and 
whose practice they were intended to con- 
trol in the days of Moses, he calls "the 
Church." And this he does to establish 
the correctness of his own faith and his 
identity with the people of God. His ar- 
gument is plainly this: The people whom 
God delivered by the hand of Moses, and 
to whom he gave "the lively oracles," were 
the Church; and Jesus being the prophet 
whom God was to "raise up unto" them, 
like unto Moses, we who, taught by "the 



The Church — When Organized'? 129 

lively oracles/' accept him as our "Ruler 
and Deliverer," are still the Church. But 
he presents the converse of this also : " To 
whom our fathers would not obey, but 
thrust him from them, and in their hearts 
turned back again into Egypt." Some re- 
jected Moses and "thrust him from them," 
refusing to recognize his authority as di- 
vine. So also did some reject Jesus. Their 
fathers had " persecuted the prophets, and 
slain them which showed before the coming 
of the Just One;" and now that he had 
come, they had betrayed and murdered him, 
and were persecuting his followers. The 
"fathers," who would not obey Moses, "but 
thrust him from them," forfeited the favor 
of God, arjd were cut off from his people. 
The " uncircumcised in heart," who rejected 
Jesus, offended the same God, and forfeited 
membership in his Church. 

To deny this is to charge Stephen with 
great folly. It was known that the dis- 
ciples of Jesus were called the Church, and 
that by Church was meant the people of 
God in covenant. It was known also that 
the Jews were the covenant people of God, 
9 



130 Children in Christ. 

with a history reaching back to the days of 
Abraham, and that this fact could not be 
controverted, being sustained by the Scrip 
tures — all the Scriptures then in existence. 
Now if the Church was a newly instituted 
something, wholly distinct and separate 
from Judaism, and formed on the basis of a 
new and different covenant, it is unaccount- 
able that, in his defense before the council 
of the Jews, Stephen should apply the name 
of this new organization to that for which 
it was substituted, and that he should set 
up no claim to such a title for that which 
was really the Church, and of which he was 
a member. 

Unless it be found in the fact that, to ac- 
cept Jesus as the Christ, the promised Re- 
deemer, was to continue in the faith and 
remain in the Church — he certainly made 
no such claim — but if found in that fact, he 
not only made the claim, but proved it be- 
yond the possibility of a doubt. This is 
just what he did; and in so doing estab- 
lished the identity of the Church, and with 
it the right of infants to membership in it. 
Of course they are to be baptized. 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 131 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE COVENANT — WHEN AND WHERE GIVEN. 

If the Church is a New Testament insti- 
tution, founded on a new covenant, and to 
be governed exclusively by New Testament 
Scriptures, will some one be kind enough 
to tell us when this new covenant w r as 
given? It must have been given before, or 
at the time that the Church was organized, 
or the Church could not be founded upon 
it. And it must have been given by Christ, 
the founder of the Church; for, before the 
Church was organized, there could be no 
officers of and no official act for it. If or- 
ganized by the apostles, they must have 
acted on authority from Christ; and, if on 
a new covenant, they must have exhibited 
their authority and explained the terms of 
the covenant upon which they proposed to 
organize. Where and when was it done? 



132 Children in Christ. 

If the New Testament be "our creed," we 
certainly have no right to believe and teach 
anything that it does not contain. If Christ 
or his apostles said anything about a new 
covenant before the Church was organized 
— or till years after — or if they ever organ- 
ized the Church at all, they have failed to 
leave any record of the fact; and therefore 
we can not be required to believe either. 

Jesus Christ expounded and enforced the 
Old Testament Scriptures, but never opposed 
their teachings, nor intimated a purpose to 
introduce a new religion. He was himself 
a Jew, brought up in the Jewish Church — 
the same church that was "in the wilder- 
ness," and that had been perpetuated by 
him to the time of his manifestation in the 
flesh — taught in the synagogues of the 
Jews, taught from their own Scriptures and 
enforced the claims of their religion, the 
sum of which he tells us was, "Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
mind, and with all thy strength, and thy 
neighbor as thyself." He said he "came 
not to destroy, but to fulfill;" and when in- 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 133 

quired of by one as to what he must do to 
inherit eternal life, referred him to the 
Scriptures — Old Testament — and assured 
him that if he would obey them he should 
live. Strange procedure, indeed, for one 
whose business was to abolish the Jewish 
religion and institute a new Church, on the 
basis of a new covenant. 

When this "new covenant" is spoken of, 
the word covenant is often used as synony- 
mous with testament, and the Old and New 
Testaments, by this means, opposed the one 
to the other. The Church, according to 
this notion, was organized on the basis of 
the New Testament. Let us see how that 
will do. All parties agree that the Church 
existed as early as the day of Pentecost. 
But not a word of the New Testament was 
written until several years after that — at 
least seven. Then the Church was organ- 
ized on something that did not exist, and 
was for several years without a charter, 
without any Scripture to guide its mem- 
bers in doctrine or government — the Old 
Testament being no longer in force, and 
the New not yet given. How were they 



134 Children in Christ 

to justify themselves in excluding the chil- 
dren — if they had done so — and in other 
doctrines and practices peculiar to their 
new organization? What defense could 
they make against those Jews who, while 
they rejected Jesus, professed to helieve the 
Scriptures, and could appeal to them as au- 
thority in all things pertaining to the wor- 
ship of God? 

It may be said, they had the inspired 
apostles to guide and teach them. True; 
but if they taught so important a fact as 
the setting up of a new Church, with a new 
law of membership, new rules of govern- 
ment, etc. , why was not some record made 
of the fact, and preserved for the guidance 
of the Church in after times? And, in the 
absence of such record, how are we to know 
that they so did and taught? "We do know 
that they constantly appealed to the Scrip- 
tures — Old Testament — both in support of 
the doctrines they preached and fo? defense 
before the Jewish church courts, when ar- 
raigned for trial; but if they organized a 
new Church, preached a single new doc- 
trine, or changed the form of church gov- 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 135 

ern merit, they have failed to record the fact, 
or to give the slightest intimation of either 
in all their writings. This we hold to be 
not only inconsistent with the new-church 
idea, but, on such an hypothesis, preposter- 
ous and absurd, and therefore impossible. 

We have said that the New Testament 
was not written until several years after the 
Pentecost; the history it contains begins, 
however, before the birth of Jesus. Does it 
open with the announcement of a new re- 
ligion, or the organization of a new church? 
Does it anywhere assail the Jewish Church, 
its doctrines, government or forms of wor- 
ship ? Does it offer a new Savior, a differ- 
ent salvation, or a new condition of salva- 
tion? or does it change the law of member- 
ship? If any of these things is done, it 
will be an easy matter to show it. Just 
point out the passage recording the fact, 
and the controversy will end — there will be 
no longer room for doubt. But if it can 
not be shown, the only reason that can be 
assigned is, that no such thing ever occurred. 

To call attention to this fact ought to 
suffice, but in addition we notice the blend- 



136 Children in Christ. 

ing of the New Testament with the Old; 
or, rather, how the New grows out of the 
Old; and is, therefore, one with it. The 
Old Testament closes with Malachi. He 
was the last of the prophets — the last in- 
spired writer before the coming of Christ 
in the flesh. Matthew opens the New. 
Four hundred years had passed since Mal- 
achi wrote. Many changes had been 
wrought; empires had risen and passed 
away; generation had succeeded generation 
to the grave, but no change had been 
wrought in the truth of God. The Church 
remained the same; prophecy changed into 
history, but did not affect the truth on 
which the faith of God's people rested, and 
could not, therefore, affect the Church. 
" Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea^' 
born of a Jewish virgin, was circumcised 
and brought up in the Church, the religion 
of the Jews; grew to manhood, was bap- 
tized of John, a Jewish priest, and pro- 
claimed himself the Messiah, the promised 
seed which should bruise the serpent's head, 
and in whom all the nations of the earth 
were to be blessed. The Church was di- 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 137 

vided, some accepting and others rejecting 
him. He was finally put to death — cruci- 
fied. His disciples said that he had risen 
from the dead, and that many of them had 
seen him. His enemies said that his body 
was stolen while the guards slept. Time 
passed on ; time was given for calm reflec- 
tion and mature thought, and Matthew, one 
of his disciples who was personally ac- 
quainted with all the fact3, being associated 
with him to the time of his death, and hav- 
ing seen him after his resurrection, guided 
by the Holy Spirit, undertakes to record 
his history. How does he begin? The 
very first sentence he utters couples his his- 
tory, through David, to Abraham: "The 
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the 
Son of David, the Son of Abraham." This 
is the opening sentence of the New Testa- 
ment, and is followed by a detailed geneal- 
ogy, through forty-two generations, from 
Abraham to the birth of Jesus, who is 
called Christ. A strange introduction to a 
new system of religion, or the formation of 
a new Church! But to show, as was evi- 
dently intended, the fulfillment of prophecy 



138 Children in Christ. 

and the consequent identity of the Church, 
with the same religion and the same Christ 
in whom the covenant with Abraham was 
confirmed, it is full of significance and 
worthy of the God who inspired it. 

The introduction of the Gospel by Mark 
also connects the two : " The beginning of 
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I 
send my messenger before thy face, which 
shall prepare thy way before thee. The 
voice of one crying in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, make his 
paths straight." This prophecy he pro- 
ceeds to show, finds its fulfillment in John 
the Baptist and Jesus Christ — John the 
messenger, Christ the Lord. Truth is al- 
ways the same ; the only change being from 
prophecy to history — from future to past — 
and the faith which accepts the truth is of 
necessity the same, always recognizing and 
accepting a present Savior, whatever rela- 
tion the facts in the history of the manifes- 
tation of that Savior in the flesh may bear 
to time. Jesus Christ is " the same yester- 
day, to-day and forever/ 5 the eternal I AM, 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 139 

always present to save ; and the faith which 
justifies, and by which the sinner is consti- 
tuted a child of God, must always recog- 
nize him as a present Savior. It was faith 
in Christ as a present Savior that secured to 
the prophets the favor of God and the in- 
spiration which enabled them to tell of his 
future manifestation to Israel. And it is 
faith in Jesus as a present Savior that en- 
ables the believer now to assert with confi- 
dence the past fact that he died for sinners 
— that he was "the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." The historical fact, touching 
the incarnation, to them was future, to us 
is past; but the salvation secured by the 
death of the Incarnate One was and is a 
present blessing, realized through faith in 
a present Savior. They " believed and 
therefore have spoken; we also believe and 
therefore speak." 

Whether the facts in the history of the 
manifested Redeemer — his life, sufferings, 
death, resurrection and ascension — be fu- 
ture, present or past, according as men lived 
before, at the time of or after his appear- 
ance in the flesh, the interest of each and 



140 Children in Christ. 

all in him as a Savior from sin and death, 
is always a present interest; and if he were 
not always a present Savior, these interests 
could not be attended to — the wants of man 
could not be met; in a word, man could 
not be saved. But, if always a present 
Savior, and faith in him as such alwa} r s 
necessary to salvation, the duties which 
man owes to God, and which in accepting 
salvation at his hands he pledges himself to 
discharge, must of necessity be always the 
same. 

One of these duties, imposed by God 
himself, and practiced by his people from 
the giving of the covenant to Abraham, is 
the recognition of God's right to the chil- 
dren and of their interest in the world's 
Redeemer, by a formal dedication of them 
to him in placing the seal of the covenant 
upon them. If Jesus be the Christ, in and 
through whom these rights and privileges 
were secured, and by whoiji these duties 
were imposed, to accept him as such and 
submit to his ordinances is most solemnly 
to pledge continued faithfulness in the dis- 
charge of these duties. And, unless God 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 141 

has relinquished his claim upon the chil- 
dren, or they have less interest in the seed 
in whom all nations are to be blessed, it is 
absolutely certain that his claim upon them 
and their interest in the atoning merits of 
Christ should still be recognized, by plac- 
ing the seal of the covenant — the sign of 
ownership — upon them; for they are not 
their own, but are bought with a price, and 
therefore should be taught to glorify God 
in their bodies and spirits, which are his. 
To refuse to baptize them on the ground 
that they are to choose for themselves, is to 
teach them that they are their own and 
have a right to withhold their service from 
God, Av r hich is both false and dangerous. 

The writers of the New Testament could 
have selected no more effectual a way to 
teach the perpetuity of everything taught 
in the Old, than by showing, as they have 
done, that the Jesus of the ]New is the Mes- 
siah of the Old Testament Scriptures — that 
he is the fulfillment of prophecy. This be- 
ing established, it follows unavoidably that 
whatever was not typical, and therefore 
temporary — ceasing of necessity with its 



142 Children in Christ. 

fulfillment — must continue, unless abolished 
by divine authority. It is, no doubt, be- 
cause of this that they have taken so much 
pains to establish the unity of truth, in 
showing the oneness of the Scriptures. In 
the first chapter of Luke the same connec- 
tion is shown. Mary, who was to "bring 
forth a son, and call his name Jesus," said: 
" lie hath holpen his servant Israel, in re- 
membrance of his mercy; as he spake to^ 
our fathers, to Abraham and his seed for- 
ever." (54th and 55th verses.) And "Zach- 
arias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord 
God of Israel; for he hath visited and re- 
deemed his people, and hath raised up a 
horn of salvation for us in the house of 
David; as he spake by the mouth of his 
holy prophets, which have been since the 
world began: That we should be saved from 
our enemies, and from the hand of all that 
hate us; to perform the mercy promised to 
our fathers, and to remember his holy cove- 
nant, the oath which he sware to our father 
Abraham." Prejudice aside, and no pet 
theories to defend, who, with these state- 






Covenant — When and Where Given, 143 

merits before him, could for a moment doubt 
that the Church and religion of the New 
Testament are the same with that of the 
Old? 

The Gospel by John opens with testi- 
mony of a like character: "In the begin- 
ning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God. All things 
were made by him, and without him was 
not anything made that was made. In him 
was life, and the life was the light of men." 
"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt 
among us." Here we are taught that Jesus 
Christ — who was, without doubt, the Word 
made flesh — was "in the beginning with 
God," that he "was God," that "all things 
were made by him," that "in him was life," 
and that "the life was the light of men." 
What more was he after the incarnation? 
He said, " I am the light of the world ;" and 
John tells us he was "that eternal life, 
which was with the Father, and was mani- 
fested unto us." Jesus Christ, then, was 
the manifested God — "Emmanuel, God 
with us;" "God manifest in the flesh." 
He was the "Redeemer," of the Old Testa- 



144 Children in Christ 

merit, as well as of the New. He was the 
same God who said, through the prophet 
Isaiah, " Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and 
ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the 
Lord, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of 
Israel." (Isaiah xli. 14.) The same who 
said, "For I will contend with him that 
contendeth with thee, and I will save thy 
children." "And all flesh shall know that 
I the Lord am thy Savior, and thy Re- 
deemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." (Isa. 
xlix. 25, 26.) The same who, when speak- 
ing of the tipae when "the Lord, whom ye 
seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, 
even the messenger of the covenant, whom 
ye delight in," said: ""For I am the Lord, 
I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob 
are not consumed." (Mai. iii. 1-6.) 

The New Testament begins with the an- 
nouncement of this fact — each one of the 
gospels begins with it. The Acts of the 
Apostles does the same. Indeed, the whole 
of the New Testament is founded upon and 
grows out of this fundamental truth. If it 
is not so Jesus was an impostor and the 
New Testament is false. If it is, then the 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 145 

introduction of a new religion or the be- 
ginning of a new Church was absolutely 
impossible ; for, as we have elsewhere shown, 
the Church is composed of the people of 
God, and the people of God are those, and 
those only, who are "in Christ Jesus" — 
who are the saved of the Lord. This was 
the case before the Incarnation, as well as 
after, if Jesus Christ is the Savior and Re- 
deemer of whom the prophet spake; and 
if not, he is no Savior at all. He is that 
"spiritual Rock" that followed the "Church 
in the wilderness," and of which they drank; 
for the apostle says, "that Rock was Christ." 
Man — all men — every human being, is 
either in a justified state — a saved relation 
to God — or he is not; if he is, it is by virtue 
of the Atonement; if he is not, it is because 
he refuses or fails to accept Christ as his 
Savior. He is either in Christ or out of 
him. If in Christ, he is a part of the body 
of Christ, which is the Church, and entitled 
to all that was purchased by him, and to 
the seal of the covenant by which the title 
is secured. Baptism is now the seal of the 
covenant, or there is none. All, therefore, 
10 



146 Children in Christ. 

who are in Christ Jesus are entitled to 
baptism. Infants are in Christ, or they are 
not. If they are not, they are no part of 
the people of God. But they are, through- 
out the Scriptures, recognized as and classed 
with his people. Either, then, God has a 
people out of Christ — and no man can con- 
ceive of such a thing — or infants are in 
Christ. 

Again, God, who calls them his people, 
had the seal of the covenant placed upon 
them, and says, U I change not." Jesus 
Christ is God, and says, "of such is the 
kingdom of God." "The kingdom of 
God," is composed of the people of God — 
the subjects of the king are the kingdom. 
Jesus Christ was the king of the Jews. 
The Jews, then, were his subjects — his 
kingdom. If the Jews were a politico- 
ecclesiastical organization, Jesus Christ was 
a politico-ecclesiastical king. As is the king, 
so is the kingdom. Either the Jews were 
a spiritual kingdom or Christ was a tempo- 
ral, political king. But Jesus says, " My 
kingdom is not of this world." And Paul 
says, " He is not a Jew, which is one out- 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 147 

wardly; neither is that circumcision which 
is outward in the flesh : But he is a Jew, 
which is one inwardly; and circumcision is 
that of the heart in the spirit, and not in 
the letter whose praise is not of men, but 
of God." The Jews, then, were a spiritual 
kingdom, and Christ was their king. It is 
true, they were not "all Israel, who were 
of Israel,'' but they ought to have been; 
and the fact that they were not, no more 
destroyed the character of the kingdom 
than the fact that all who are in the (visible) 
Church now, are not "born of the Spirit/' 
destroys the Church. This kingdom, of 
which Christ was king, was composed, in 
part, of infants, who had the seal of circum- 
cision upon them. 

Now consider that the writers of the 
gospels were themselves Jews, taught in the 
Jewish religion and scriptures; that they 
nowhere renounce that religion, nor claim 
to have found a new savior, nor propose to 
organize a new church ; but that they simply 
continued to acknowledge God as their king, 
recognizing him in the person of Jesus 
Christ; and that Christ acknowledged them 



148 Children in Christ. 

as his subjects, and recognized their children 
as "of the kingdom," and the identity 
and perpetuity of the Church, with its 
infant membership, is an established fact. 
Paul says, ""We are the circumcision which 
worship God in the spirit and rejoice in 
Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the 
flesh;" which is the same as if he had said, 
we are the true Jews — the Church. (Phil. 
iii. 3.) Of course the children were in- 
cluded; for, be it remembered that, so for 
as we know, until about fifteen years after 
the death of Christ, there had not been 
added to the Church a single member out- 
side of the Jewish people. The only ad- 
ditions, up to this time, being from among 
those Jews who at first rejected their king, 
and, of course, left the Church or kingdom. 
Being convinced of their error, they after- 
wards repented and returned to the Church 
— were added to those who accepted the 
king and continued in the kingdom. If 
their children were ever excluded, it is not 
recorded. The king himself had said they 
were still " of the kingdom." 

Thus we see that the manifestation of 



Covenant — When and Where Given. 149 

"the King eternal/' who "is king forever 
and ever," did not destroy his kingdom; 
but that, " Of the increase of his govern- 
ment and peace there shall be no end, upon 
the throne of David, and upon his king- 
dom, to order it, and to establish it with 
judgment and with justice from henceforth, 
even forever." 



150 Children in Christ. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE COMMISSION. 

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
Teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you: and, lo, I 
am with you alway, even to the end of the 
world. Amen." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) 

We have traced the history of the 
Church from the renewing of the promise 
to Abraham, under the covenant in which 
it was sealed, to the coming of the promised 
seed, Christ, in whom that " covenant was 
confirmed of God;" and have found that 
infants, on whom the seal of the covenant 
was originally placed by express command 
of God, continued to be recognized as a 
part of the covenant people — the Church — 
throughout the entire history. We have 
seen, also, that the prophets, foretelling the 



The Commission. 151 

work of the promised Redeemer when he 
should be manifested to Israel, said, "He 
shall gather the lambs with his arms and 
carry them in his bosom; " .that "their 
children also shall be as aforetime." And 
we have found the New Testament opening 
with a recognition of Jesus as the Christ, 
the promised seed of Abraham, and him 
declaring the children to be " of the king- 
dom." It would be passing strange if, after 
all this, the children should be excluded 
from the covenant and Church of God, and 
deprived of the right of recognition as 
subjects in his kingdom. Nevertheless, if 
it has been done, we wish to know it, and 
therefore press our inquiries a little farther. 
He who was "born king of the Jews," 
and who recognized their " little children" 
as "of the kingdom," is charged with 
omitting, and thereby excluding them from 
his Church and kingdom, in the commission 
which he gave to disciple — in fulfillment 
of the original promise, which we have 
seen included infants — "all nations." This 
is a grave charge, involving as it does, to 
say the least, apparent inconsistencies in 



152 Children in Christ. 

the king. If, however, it is true," and can 
be shown to be so, though we can not see 
the consistency, we w T ill bow submissively 
to the divinQ behest and confess the diffi- 
culty to be in our want of ability to under- 
stand. But does the commission exclude 
them? Is there anything in it that can 
not apply to infants ? If so, what is it? Is 
it in the first word teach, taking that as its 
meaning? (There are two different words 
in the commission translated teach.) Will 
any say that children can not be taught? 
"Why, this same "king of the Jews,'' who 
now commands the teaching, had, for 
centuries, made it the duty of this very 
people (the Jews), to whom the commission 
w T as given, to teach the children. " There- 
fore shall ye lay up these my words in your 
heart and in your soul, and bind them for 
a sign upon your hand, that they may be 
as frontlets between your eyes. And ye 
shall teach them your children, speaking of 
them when thou sittest in thine house." 
(Deut. xi. 18, 19.) Had he just learned that 
they could not be taught? or determined 
that they should not be?- 



The Commission. 153 

But it may be said the word means dis- 
ciple, and should be so translated. Grant 
it; and what then? Can not children be 
discipled — brought into the school of 
Christ? What is it to be a disciple, but to 
be in the kingdom? and had he not said: 
"Of such is the kingdom ?" Will any one 
contend that to disciple is not to induct into 
the kingdom ? It can not mean to renew, 
to regenerate them. Only God can do that; 
and this is something to be done by man. 
If man is to make disciples, it must be done 
in some outward form, by symbol or sign. 
How, then, is it to be done? By "baptiz- 
ing them?" If so, there is no difficulty in 
the case; for certainly children can be bap- 
tized. If it be said, as it is by some, that 
discipling comes before baptism — that 
they are to be made disciples and then bap- 
tized — still we ask, How is it to be done ? 
Remember, man is to do it. Is it by teach- 
ing? If so, in what does the discipling 
differ from the after-teaching? After bap- 
tism they are to be taught " to observe all 
things'* commanded by the Savior. Does 
the teaching before baptism contemplate 



154 Children in Christ. 

less or more than that ? If less, how much 
less ? and what is the part to be taught ? If 
more, in what does the overplus consist ? If 
they are to make disciples, and then bap- 
tize them — baptize them because they are 
disciples — it is certainly a matter of inter- 
est to know what is to be done ; to know 
how man is to qualify his fellows for Chris- 
tion baptism. Until we do know, we cer- 
tainly can not know that infants can not 
be discipled, and that they are not to be 
baptized. 

If it be said, "They are to be taught to 
repent and believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, " we ask, Does this teaching make 
disciples, or does it simply show men how 
they may become disciples? Do they not, 
so far as human agency is concerned, make 
themselves disciples by the personal exer- 
cise of the necessary faith ? If so, in what 
sense does the minister make disciples ? Al- 
lowing that he does thus, instrumentally, 
make disciples, we still ask, Why are they 
to be taught to repent and believe? Is it 
not because they have sinned ? And if they 
must repent and believe because they have 



The Commission. 155 

sinned, and in order to the pardon of their 
sins, are they any better after they are par- 
doned than they were before they sinned? 
or is their relation to God different from 
what it was before? If not, what reason 
exists now for baptizing them that did not 
exist before they sinned? Certainly none, 
except the fact that they have sinned. 
Sin forfeits the divine favor, and when God 
pardons the sinner he receives him back to 
the forfeited favor. If on this ground he 
is to be baptized, either he was entitled to 
it before he sinned — while in innocent in- 
fancy — or baptism is a premium set by God 
upon sin ! 

What, then, we still ask, is there in the 
commission that excludes infants? Is it 
that the subjects to be baptized are specified 
in such terms as to exclude them? Let us 
see. Who are to be baptized? "All na- 
tions." "Go teach all nations, baptizing 
them." If there are infants in "all nations," 
then are they in the commission, and to be 
baptized. Not only is there nothing in it 
excluding them, but when we consider that 
He who gave the commission to " teach all 



156 Children in Christ. 

nations, baptizing them/' is the same who 
said to Abraham : " In thy seed shall all 
the nations of the earth be blessed/' and 
who, having placed infants in the covenant, 
taught that they were to be commanded af- 
ter their parents in the service of God, thus 
raising up and perpetuating a people unto 
himself, it amounts to an absolute certainty 
that he intended them to be baptized and 
continued in his Church. 

Let us take another view of th^ subject. 
We have seen elsewhere that the promise 
sealed in covenant with Abraham was the 
same that was originally given to Adam ; 
that it was renewed to Abraham in a form 
adapted to the changed condition of the 
human race, which change was brought 
about by a miraculous visitation of God 
upon man. This change did not affect the 
unity of human nature but only the rela- 
tions to each other of the individuals bear- 
ing that nature; giving them a diversity of 
tongues, or languages, and dispersing them 
into different nationalities. Each and all 
of these different nations, being possessed 
of the same nature, were equally interested 



The Commission. 157 

in the original promise, and in the develop- 
ment of the plan of salvation on which it 
rested. Hence its form, as renewed to 
Abraham, embraces " all the nations" and 
"all the families of the earth." To all na- 
tions there was one God, and the seed in 
whom all were to be blessed was One; 
so they who accepted salvation in him 
were to constitute one family, and come at 
last to speak one language, the pure lan- 
guage of Zion. Hence they were taught 
to say, "Our Father, which art in heaven." 
Lest this oneness be lost sight of in the 
diversity of nationalities and languages, it 
was necessary that there should be some 
bond of union and a center to which all 
should be drawn and around which the 
members of this one family should be gath- 
ered. This center was presented in the 
promised seed, " which is Christ/' and the 
covenant with its seal furnished the bond 
of union. The plan of salvation w T as per- 
fect, and Christ, who was "as a lamb slain 
from the foundation of the world," was a 
present Savior from the time the announce- 
ment was first made that the seed of the 



158 Children in Christ. 

woman should bruise the serpent's head; 
but, as the seed of the woman, the seed of 
Abraham — the manifested Christ — he was, 
as yet, given only in promise. Hence the 
seal of the covenant and the ceremonial 
services to which the sealed were bound, 
were typical and symbolical, speaking at 
once of the cutting off of sins and of the 
cutting off 1 of him who was to be an offer- 
ing for sin. Thus the unity of the Church 
— the oneness of God's people — was per- 
petuated, and the oracles of truth preserved 
until the promised seed should come, who 
is " the head over all things to the Church, 
which is his body." The blessings secured 
in this covenant were never, however, con- 
fined to the natural descendants of Abra- 
ham ; but any and all were at liberty to ac- 
cept the terms of the covenant, identify 
themselves with the people of God, and 
avail themselves of its blessings, bringing 
their children with them. 

This condition of things continued until 
" Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea." 
If he was the promised seed, then is he the 
world's Redeemer. The question of his 



The Commission. 159 

Messiahship hinges here. But, if he was 
the Christ, the promise! seed, he was born 
under the covenant which secured the prom- 
ise. That he was born under the covenant 
none for whom we write will be disposed to 
doubt; for to deny it would be to deny that 
he is the Christ. He was not only born 
under the covenant, and received the ap- 
pointed seal — circumcision — but he re- 
mained in it, and to this day it is impossi- 
ble to conceive of him as being outside of 
the covenant in which was sealed blessings 
to all nations. Let the reader pause and 
make the effort. Let him try to think of 
Christ, the promised seed, the sum of all 
good, the source of all blessings, as being 
outside of the covenant which secured the 
promise, and which was itself confirmed in 
him. Of necessity, the very moment it 
ceases the blessings secured by it fail. 

In the Abrahamic covenant the promise 
of blessings to all nations was sealed; 
which promise, it is admitted by all parties, 
is now being fulfilled. But if the covenant 
be destroyod, what becomes of the promise? 
where is the guaranty of its fulfillment? 



160 Children in Christ. 

and on what ground is it perpetuated? You 
might just as well tell me that Jesus Christ 
has ceased to be the Savior as to tell me 
that the covenant, in which the promise of 
salvation is sealed, has ceased. They are 
one and inseparable. The covenant itself 
was founded upon the atonement made by 
Christ, and as long as he reigns and the 
atonement remains a fact, so long must the 
covenant remain in force. Truly, it is 
an "everlasting covenant," "confirmed in 
Christ;" so long as he continues a Savior, 
just so long will it embrace the saved; and 
just so long will it continue to be true that 
"They which are of faith, the same are 
the children of Abraham;" for, "if ye be 
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
heirs according to the promise" Just as 
soon will Jesus Christ cease to be the seed 
of Abraham as will they who are "the chil- 
dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus" cease 
to be of the Abrahamic covenant, or their 
little children, by divine authority, be de- 
nied the right of membership in the Church 
and the benefits of its sealing ordinance — 
baptism. 



The Commission. . 161 

Jesus Christ being the promised seed to 
whom all the typical services of the cove- 
nant looked, of course when the prophe- 
cies were fulfilled, the prophetic services 
ceased, and to continue them would be to 
deny that Jesus is the Christ, as some have 
done and are still doing. The fact that he 
has come, however, does not destroy the 
covenant, but only establishes it, and is the 
signal that the promise which it contains 
of blessings to all nations is about to be 
more fully accomplished. Accordingly, in 
the commission which authorizes the carry- 
ing of the gospel — which " before was 
preached to Abraham," and which con- 
tained the blessings of the covenant — "into 
all the world," he adopts the very language 
of the covenant — teach (disciple) "all na- 
tions." 

But the plurality of nations, with the di- 
versity of tongues, as we have seen, resulted 
from a miraculous display of divine power, 
and necessitated the renewal of the orig- 
inal promise in a form adapted to this 
changed condition of the human family. 
Not a promise of a plurality of Saviors, 






162 Children in Christ. 

but the promise of salvation, through the 
one seed, which is Christ, to all the human 
race (which is one), notwithstanding the 
diversity of nationalities and tongues. 

The evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the 
promised seed in the " everlasting cove- 
nant," culminated in the Pentecostal bap- 
tism, when "there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues, like as of fire, and sat upon 
each of them; and they were all filled with 
the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with 
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them ut- 
terance.' 5 Here we have a miracle corre- 
sponding with the one which necessitated 
the form of the promise as sealed in cove- 
nant with Abraham, qualifying the disciples 
for carrying out the provisions of the cove- 
nant in blessings to "all nations/' and es- 
tablishing forever and beyond all doubt the 
fact that Jesus is the Christ, the promised 
seed of Abraham. 

In the very first sentence of the New 
Testament he is announced as " the son of 
David, the son of Abraham ;" and then his 
genealogy is given in detail, to show his 
identity with the covenant-people of God. 






The Commission. 163 

He was circumcised and brought up under 
that covenant, observing all its require- 
ments; he taught in the synagogues of the 
Jews, and out of their own Scriptures; se- 
lected Jews for his apostles and trained 
them for the special work for which they 
w r ere designed, without once intimating to 
them that the covenant under which they 
were reared was to be destroyed or dis- 
placed by another; taught them to recog- 
nize " little children" as "of the kingdom," 
and finally commissioned them to "go into 
all the world and preach the gospel to ev- 
ery creature," — to "teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you; and lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." They were not, however, to go at 
once; but, as St. Luke tells us: "He said 
unto them, these are the words which I 
spake unto you, while I w T as yet with you, 
that all things must be fulfilled, which are 
written in the law of Moses, and in the proph- 
ets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then 



164 Children in Christ. 

opened he their understanding that they 
might understand the Scriptures, and said 
unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from 
the dead the third day: and that repentance 
and remission of sins should be preached in 
his name among all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these 
things. And, behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in 
the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued 
with power from on high." 

Here, first, he reminds them of what he 
had previously taught them: "That all 
things must be fulfilled which are written 
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, 
and in the Psalms concerning me." Second, 
"Then opened he their understanding that 
they might understand the Scriptures" — 
Old Testament, of course. Third. What, 
their understanding being opened, they 
understood the Scriptures to teach : "Thus 
it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to 
suffer and to rise from the dead the third 
day : and that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name among 



The Commission, 165 

all nations^ beginning at Jerusalem." Fourth. 
"And ye are witnesses of these things," viz. : 
the sufferings, death and resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of the Scrip- 
tures, and the ground upon which "repent- 
ance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations," 
in accordance with the provisions of the 
covenant, that in him all the nations of the 
earth should be blessed. Fifth. To qualify 
them for the work to which they were 
called, they were to be H endued with power 
from on high," according to the promise of 
the Father, for which they were to "tarry 
in the city of Jerusalem." 

Now turn to Acts i., and you will see 
that this "promise of the Father" was 
baptism: For John truly baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost not many days hence." The 
effect of this baptism was a diversity of 
tongues, but the Spirit is one; and this di- 
versity of tongues was designed to teach 
the unity, or oneness, of the "body of 
Christ," the Church : " For by one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one body, whether we 



166 Children in Christ. 

be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
or free; and have been all made to drink 
into one spirit. " This oneness of the Church 
notwithstanding the diversity of nation- 
alities and tongues, being the result of the 
"one baptism," is a standing, perpetual 
and irresistible evidence of the Messiahship 
of Christ and, as such, of the perpetuity of 
the Abrahamic covenant. Thus it is seen 
that the commission, so far from excluding 
infants from the pale of the Church and 
depriving them of the sign of recognition 
— baptism— when we consider the circum- 
stances under which it was given, the 
miraculous gift of tongues qualifying the 
disciples to carry out its provisions, that its 
provisions are precisely those of the Abra- 
hamic covenant, and that Jesus Christ, the 
seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, 
the fountain and source of all blessings, is 
the author of each and the substance of all 
that is promised or realized, is an explicit 
command to baptize them. It would be as 
reasonable to deny that Jesus was the seed 
of Abraham, until he reached the years of 
manhood, as to deny that infants, for whom 






The Commission. 167 

he died, and who are unconditionally saved 
by virtue of his death, have a right to that 
which is a symbol of the purchased bless- 
ing. The force and design of this second 
miracle of tongues, when taken in connection 
with the first and the form of the promise 
which it necessitated, will appear more 
clearly when we consider that, " B There were 
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, 
out of every nation under heaven." The 
providences of God are, indeed, sometimes 
strange, but when properly understood al- 
ways speak the wisdom and goodness of an 
infinite Sovereign. He had, by a miracu- 
lous visitation, produced the diversity of 
tongues and nations; he then renewed the 
promise in a form adapted to the change, 
and sealed it in covenant with a chosen, 
peculiar people, and instituted such sacrifices 
and forms of service as were adapted to 
the development and illustration of the 
plan of salvation on which it rested, and in 
the completed manifestation of which it 
was to find its fulfillment in the full, free 
and continuous offer of life to "all the 
nations of the earth," without respect of 



168 Children in Christ. 

persons or the intervention of the peculiar 
ceremonials that were necessary to prefigure 
the coming of Christ, the promised seed. 
This peculiar people, by his special provi- 
dence, were preserved and perpetuated dis- 
tinct from all others, till the fullness of time 
had come; and yet, while distinct and 
separate from all other nations, they had 
no national government or language at the 
time the commission was given, but were 
scattered among all nations and spoke all 
languages. Some from each and all these 
nations were gathered at Jerusalem. "There 
were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout 
men, out of every nation under heaven." In 
this fact may be found the reason for "be- 
ginning at Jerusalem." What would more 
certainly, or could more effectually, establish 
in the minds of this united, and yet diverse 
people, the Messiahship of Jesus, than for 
"every man," "out of every nation under 
heaven," to hear "in his own tongue, where- 
in he was born," though the speakers were 
"all Galileans?" And this was the effect 
of the second miracle of tongues. They 
could not but think of the form of the 



The Commission. 169 

promise to Abraham — "all the nations of 
the earth ;" and they were distinctly re- 
minded of what one of their own prophets, 
under the seal of the covenant securing 
that promise, had said: "And it shall come 
to pass in the last days, saith God, I will 
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 
What, then, must have been their con- 
clusion? That the Abrahamic covenant 
was destroyed or displaced by another? If 
so, what evidence did they give of such 
conclusion? Where and when was that 
other covenant given ? who were the parties 
to it? what were its terms of membership 
and what its seal? Let the reader bring 
an impartial, unprejudiced mind to bear 
upon these questions, and the conclusion 
will be inevitable that the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, so far from being displaced or de- 
stroyed, was just beginning to be fully 
developed, and its promise of blessings to 
"all nations'' to be understood. 



170 Children in Christ 



CHAPTER X. 

APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 

Having examined the commission itself, 
let us now inquire how the apostles under- 
stood it. Did they understand it to exclude 
infants? If so, we shall find something 
either in their teachings or practice indi- 
cating it. The first sermon preached under 
its direction was by Peter on the day of 
Pentecost. It was addressed to the Jews, 
the covenant people of God. In it he 
proves the divinity, the Messiahship of 
Jesus, and concludes his argument in these 
words : u Therefore let all the house of Israel 
know assuredly that God hath made that 
same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
Lord and Christ. Now when they heard 
this, they were pricked in their heart, and 
said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, 
Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then 
Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- 






Apostolic Practice. 171 

tized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
For the promise is unto you and your chil- 
dren, and to all that are afar off, even as 
many as the Lord our God shall call." 
This passage has been noticed elsewhere, 
but let us look at it again. ' ( - The promise 
is unto you and your children." If by 
"the promise" Peter meant the promise 
given in covenant to Abraham, infant 
membership is by him positively and in 
round terms asserted ; for everybody knows 
that they were by express command of God 
embraced in that covenant, and that they 
have never been excluded therefrom. And 
if it was still in force on the day of Pente- 
cost, and acted upon and enforced by Peter, 
under the commission of our Lord, it is 
still, and must continue to be. And if so, 
infant church membership is undeniably an 
established fact. This nobody pretends to 
deny; and hence it is contended that Peter 
referred, not to the promise given Abraham, 
but to the prophecy of Joel about the pour- 
ing out of the Spirit. 



172 Children in Christ. 

Well, let it be assumed that he did; then 
what follows? Why, that the promise of 
baptism (it is called baptism in Acts, first 
chapter) was given, under the seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant, to the covenant people 
of God, and according to the terms of the 
covenant, "to them that are afar off," to 
"all flesh," "all the nations of the earth;" 
and that because this promise of baptism 
was to them and their children, they should 
"repent and be baptized/' and trust in the 
name of Jesus Christ — in whom the cove- 
nant was confirmed and through whom the 
promised blessing must be realized — for the 
remission of sins. But why associate bap- 
tism with the name of Jesus Christ? Was 
it because they were now under a new cov- 
enant, and required to accept a new Savior? 
No ; but just the reverse. The prophet had 
said, in the passage quoted by Peter: "And 
it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
Peter shows that God hath made Jesus 
"both Lord and Christ." To reject him, 
therefore, was to reject salvation; for 
"neither is there salvation in any other; 



Apostolic Practice. 173 

for there is none other name under heaven 
given among men whereby we must be 
saved." He had "received of the Father 
the promise of the Holy Ghost," and it 
was only by receiving him that they could 
receive the Holy Ghost, which he " shed 
forth" upon them. In rejecting him they 
had departed from the faith, rejected their 
own Scriptures, and deprived themselves of 
the blessings promised to them and their 
children. It w T as therefore necessary, in re- 
ceiving baptism, to recognize his name as 
the only means of obtaining the promised 
baptism from above. 

Thus we see that, whether in the Old 
Testament or in the New, Christ Jesus is 
the center from which all truth radiates, and 
to which all truth tends; that he is the sum 
of all good and the source of all blessings; 
so that to be in him is to be in favor with 
the Father, and entitled to everything se- 
cured by the death of the Son. He is the 
bond of union between fallen, redeemed 
man and God; and as long as it remains a 
fact that the world has had but one Re- 
deemer, but one Savior, the unity of the 



174 Children in Christ. 

Church, the body of Christ, in all ages of 
the world, must remain a self-evident fact ; 
and the cross, instead of being the dividing 
line between the people of God who lived 
before, and those who live after his death, 
is the indissoluble bond of union between 
the two; "for we are all one in Christ Je- 
sus, and if we be Christ's, then are we 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise." 

Nor does it matter by what name we call 
that work of the 'Spirit which puts them 
"in Christ Jesus;" the work and the agent 
that performs it, of necessity, are the same. 
If we say in the one case, it was "the cir- 
cumcision made without hands," and in the 
other, " we are all baptized by one Spirit 
into one body," it is an undeniable fact that 
these are but two names for the same thing. 
It is the " putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of 
the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead." If infants were ever en- 
titled to the sign or symbol of that work 



Apostolic Practice. 175 

of the Spirit, and thereby recognized as of 
the people of God, they are now, and must 
continue to be, entitled to the same. That 
they were so recognized before the death 
of Christ, will not, because it can not, be 
denied. It follows, therefore, that they are 
entitled to Christian baptism; for to deny 
that baptism is a symbol of the purifying 
influence of the Spirit, would be to fly in 
the face of the plainest truth, and we will 
not insult the common-sense of the reader 
by an attempt to prove it. 

If, therefore, Peter referred to the proph- 
ecy of Joel, when he said, "The promise 
is unto you and your children," the force 
of his language is about this : The promise 
of baptism by the Spirit is unto you and 
your children; Jesus is he who sheds forth 
this baptism which ye now see; receive ye, 
therefore, the symbol of it — water baptism 
— trusting in his name that he, being thus 
recognized by you, may fulfill the promise 
to you — baptize you with the Holy Ghost. 
Children having always been recognized 
as entitled to the symbol of the Spirit's 



176 Children in Christ. 

work in salvation, his language is an ex- 
press warrant for their baptism. 

The practice of the apostles, under the 
commission, was to baptize households — 
families: Lydia " was baptized, and her 
household." The jailer "was baptized, he 
and all his, straightway." — Acts xvi. 15 and 
33. We will not attempt to prove that 
there were infants in these families, nor 
even assume that there were; though the 
circumstances, and the language employed, 
are all favorable to such assumption. We 
do not regard it as important to the argu- 
ment. It is enough to know that the apos- 
tles were themselves brought up in the 
Church, had been used to infant member- 
ship all their lives, and that the only 
Church they had ever known was organ- 
ized under a covenant especially providing 
for their recognition as members ; and that 
he who gave the commission was a member 
of that Church, recognized its authority, 
taught out of its Scriptures, and only sought 
to establish the faith of its members in the 
truth of those Scriptures and, by conse- 
quence, in him who came to fulfill them. 



Apostolic Practice. 177 

Having never left the Church himself, nor 
advised others to do so ; but, on the other 
hand, being "King of the Jews," and hav- 
ing taught his disciples that "little children' 7 
are "of the kingdom/' he sent them out 
to "disciple all nations, baptizing them." 
Under these circumstances, it is absolutely 
impossible, with any sort of consistency, to 
suppose that they, without a positive pro- 
hibition by the King, would refuse to bap- 
tize infants. 

The promise was not only to "all the 
nations of the earth," but to "all the fami- 
lies of the earth," also; and the idea of 
family was kept up through all the history 
of the covenant people, till the Promised 
Seed came, and perpetuated by him in the 
prayer which he taught his disciples to 
pray: "Our Father which art in heaven," 
etc. In this prayer we are not only taught 
that the people of God are a family, but 
also that "Our Father" is a King, and that 
his children are the subjects and constitute 
his kingdom. After he taught them this 
prayer, he said distinctly, "Suffer little 
children to come, unto me, and forbid them 
12 



178 Children in Christ. 

not; for of such is the kingdom of God." 
Now, unless it can be shown that the Church 
is something different and distinct from the 
people, or kingdom, of God, and that to 
disciple all nations is not to bring them 
into the Church, it follows that the com- 
mission is a positive command to baptize 
children. And as, under it, the apostles 
taught and practiced household, or family, 
baptisms, without stopping to inquire 
whether there were infants in them or 
not, it is evident they so understood it. 
If, therefore, it could be proved that there 
were no infants in any of the families bap- 
tized by them — which is impossible — it re- 
mains to be proved that they would not 
have baptized them, if there had been. 

The covenant relation of children to 
God, as a necessary result of the plan of 
salvation and inseparable from the atone- 
ment, having been so long recognized by 
God and sanctioned by Jesus Christ, noth- 
ing short of a positive prohibition could 
justify the apostles in refusing to baptize 
them. As this is not found in the com- 
mission, nor in any of Christ's instructions; 



Apostolic Practice. 179 

in the absence of a plain and positive re- 
fusal, on the part of the apostles, to bap- 
tize them, it is the height of presumption 
to say that they did refuse, or that they 
ought to have done so. 

If, therefore, it had not been commanded 
in the New Testament, and if there were 
no positive evidence that the apostles bap- 
tized infants, it would be extremely pre- 
sumptuous and hazardous to refuse them 
membership in the Church; as to do so, 
would be to question the wisdom of God, 
and to condemn the practice of the Church, 
under his special direction, throughout its 
entire history from Abraham to Christ ! It 
would be to array the New Testament 
against the Old, the teachings and prac- 
tice of Christ against the teachings and 
practice of the patriarchs and prophets 
whom he inspired, and in fulfillment of 
whose prophecies he came. It would be 
to destroy the unity and harmony of truth, 
and to say that Christ destroyed, instead 
of fulfilling, many of the types and proph- 
ecies of the Old Testament. It would be 
to bring suspicion upon the Church itself, 



180 



Children in Christ. 



and to question the Messiahship of its head 
and founder. But when we consider the 
positive teachings of Christ, the form of 
the commission, Peter's declaration on the 
day of Pentecost, and the household bap- 
tisms, recorded in the Acts and in the 
Epistles, it is unaccountable how anybody 
ever thought of denying the right of infants 
to baptism. 



Thy Kingdom Come. 181 



CHAPTER XL 

THY KINGDOM COME. 

"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done 
on earth, as it is in heaven." — Matt. vi. 
10. This prayer was taught by our Lord to 
his disciples in his Sermon on the Mount. 
That sermon contains instruction adapted 
to, and doubtless intended for, all the sub- 
sequent generations of man. This is seen 
both in the character of the instruction and 
in the fact that, by the direction of the Lord 
himself, it has been given to the world as 
a part of that word which is to be " a lamp 
to our feet, and a light to our path." We 
can hardly suppose that this form of prayer 
was intended simply to be used by his dis- 
ciples until the day of Pentecost — at which 
time, it is thought by some, the kingdom 
came, and, being then set up, there is no 
longer any use for the prayer — and is left 
upon record only as a matter of history. 
Such a supposition, we think, grows out 



182 Children in Christ. 

of a misconception of what the kingdom 
of God is, and the want of attention to the 
very words of the prayer. The idea that 
God never had a kingdom until about 
eighteen hundred years ago, is certainly 
a very strange one — especially to a student 
of the Bible. 

What is a kingdom? The word denotes 
jurisdiction; and is defined to mean " the 
territory or country subject to a king;" 
also, " the inhabitants or population subject 
to a king." Now, if we can ascertain 
when God began to have subjects and to 
reign or rule over them, we will then know 
when his kingdom began to exist. As he 
has not chosen to enlighten us on this sub- 
ject, and is not likely to do so; and as we 
have no other means of learning, it is not 
at all probable that we will ever know T , at 
least in this world. 

If, however, we only wish to know when 
his kingdom began to exist on earth, our 
inquiry may not be wholly in vain. Ac- 
cording to the best information we have or 
can have on the subject, the first created 
pair were, at least for a while — how long we 



Thy Kingdom Come. 183 

know not — obedient subjects; and if God 
was King and reigned over them, there was 
his kingdom. Whether he waa known by 
that name, or not, does not affect the ques- 
tion; the change of name does not change 
the thing, for God is unchangeable, "the 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever." When 
he was first recognized on earth by the title, 
King, we do not know; but we do know 
that he is often spoken of in the Old Test- 
ament Scriptures as King, and his people 
characterized as a kingdom. " For God is 
my King of old, working salvation in the 
midst of the earth." (Ps. lxiv. 12.) "The 
Lord is our King; he will save us." (Isa. 
xxxiii. 22.) "I am the Lord, your Holy 
One, the Creator of Israel, your King." — 
(Isa. xliii. 15.) "But the Lord is the true- 
God, he is the living God, and an everlast- 
ing King." (Jer. x. 10.) Other passages 
might be quoted, but these are sufficient 
for our purpose. We design to show that 
the idea that God never had a kingdom in 
the world until the day of Pentecost, is 
opposed both to reason and the Holy Scrip- 
tures. 



184 Children in Christ. 

But the very language of the prayer is 
opposed to such an idea: "Thy kingdom 
come. 5 ' It is not a prayer for the origina- 
tion of something that has no existence, 
but for the coming of a kingdom already 
existing. The existence of the kingdom 
is not only implied in the word come, but 
also positively asserted in the concluding 
part of the prayer : " Thine is the kingdom, 
and the power, and the glory, forever/' It 
is not, thine will be, but "thine is the king- 
dom." The existence of the kingdom is an 
acknowledged fact; and its glorious gov- 
ernment by the King of kings is so fruitful 
of happiness to his subjects, that the won- 
der is that all men do not adopt the lan- 
guage of the prayer, nor cease their plead- 
ings till the will of the King is done by 
them on earth, even as it is done in heaven. 
This was once the case; and when this 
prayer is fully answered — as we have no 
doubt it will be — it will be so again. We 
say it was so ; for we can not doubt that, 
until they who were made in the image 
and likeness of God rebelled against their 
King and became subjects of another king, 



Thy Kingdom Gome. 185 

even Satan, the will of God was done, by 
them, on earth as fully, as perfectly, as it 
was and is done in heaven. 

It was because the will of God ceased to 
be done on earth, that it became necessary 
to offer such a prayer. The "everlasting 
King" will consent to reign over none but 
willing subjects, where the judgment is suf- 
ficiently matured to admit of choice. In- 
deed, he can not, without destroying the 
will of his subjects; which would be to 
render sin impossible, and to set aside every 
law enacted for the punishment of sin. If 
such were the case, the Bible would be no 
longer a directory for man, but for God! 
Every commandment and every prohibi- 
tion, though given ostensibly to man, would 
in reality be given to God! What a mon- 
strous thought! What an inconceivable 
conception ! God enacting laws for his 
own government, and then refusing to obey 
them ! And worse still, punishing his in- 
nocent creatures for his own sins! Man 
having rebelled against his King and for- 
feited all claim to his protection, must be- 
come willing to enter again into his service, 



186 Children in Christ. 

and seek unto him to this end. In this 
there is to be no selfishness; he must de- 
sire, and be willing to labor to effect, the 
salvation of others also — to bring them to 
obedience to their King. Hence we are 
taught to address him not as my, but as 
" our Father. " ' ' Thy kingdom come. Thy 
will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. " 
It is not to originate a kingdom, but to 
extend one already existing — "lengthen 
her cords and strengthen her stakes.'' To 
illustrate, let us suppose the people of the 
United States to become tired of their pres- 
ent form of government, and to desire a 
king. They desire not to originate a king- 
dom — to make a king — but to be taken 
under the protection of a king already 
reigning. Would not a petition embracing 
the substance of this prayer, yea, the very 
form of the prayer, be appropriate? " Thy 
kingdom come, thy will be done" in this 
part of America, as it is done in England 
— or wherever the king reigned. 

Men are sometimes disposed to reverse 
the order of the prayer, and assume to do 
the will of God in order that his kingdom 



Thy Kingdom Come. 187 

may come. That is, instead of following 
the direction of Jesus Christ and praying, 
4 'Thy .kingdom come," they go to work to 
set up the kingdom themselves. We do 
not wonder that such men refuse to pray 
the Lord's Prayer; for truly, if they can 
do his will without the kingdom of God 
which "is within," and thus force his rec- 
ognition of them as his subjects, they have 
no need of such a prayer — nor, indeed, of 
any other! 

H Thy will be done on earth, as it is in 
heaven" Now, if we can learn how the 
will of God is done in heaven, we will then 
know how it is to be done on earth. It is 
true we have no direct information as to 
what is done in heaven, nor how; yet there 
are some things about which we can not be 
mistaken. We necessarily conclude that 
his will is done perfectly, i. e. 9 that it is 
done continuously, without interruption 
and without intermission, and up to the full 
ability of his subjects; that it is done in 
perfect harmony, without the slightest dis- 
cord, without envy or jealousy; that it is 
done contentedly, without, murmuring or 



188 



Children in Christ. 



complaining — every one satisfied in his 
own sphere and with his own character of 
service. Xot that there is perfect equality 
in heaven; for there are angels and arch- 
angels, cherubim and seraphim, and the re- 
deemed from among men. But every one 
is content to remain in the place to which 
he is appointed, and to do the work assign- 
ed him, without complaining that a more 
honorable position has not fallen to his lot. 
They do his will, also, without questioning. 
Having perfect confidence in the wisdom 
and goodness of God, they do not stop to 
inquire why this or that service is required 
of them, but speed with delight on whatever 
mission they may be sent, or patiently wait 
the bidding of their King. There is no 
reluctant service rendered in heaven; there 
are no halting, hesitating subjects there. 

Finally, the will of God is done by all 
the inhabitants of heaven. There are no 
delinquents there. AVe can not even im- 
agine an exception. To refuse or fail to 
do the will of God, would be to forfeit his 
favor, and necessitate the expulsion of the 
delinquent from his kingdom. In like 



Thy Kingdom Come. 189 

manner the will of God is to be done on 
earth: perfectly in all respects, willingly, 
continuously, contentedly, patiently, with 
delight, and by all the inhabitants of the 
earth. Until this is accomplished, it must 
continue to be the duty of all who would 
serve God to pray this prayer. We have 
need to pray it for ourselves, as individuals, 
until we are enabled to do his will perfectly, 
in thought, word and deed; for nothing 
short of this can be supposed to meet the 
requirement, to fill the measure of the stan- 
dard here given. Nor will this suffice. We 
must continue till every child of man re- 
maining upon the earth shall be brought 
into the kingdom and up to the standard 
of perfect obedience here laid down — until 
"the kingdoms of this world are become 
the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his 
Christ ; and he shall reign forever and 
ever." 

But what of the children? the u little 
ones?" Are they to be left out? Not if 
the will of God is done on earth, as it is 
done in heaven; unless we can believe that 
there are no " little ones" there. If infants 



190 Children in Christ. 

are received into the kingdom of God in 
heaven, and his will is to be done on earth 
as it is in heaven, how can they be excluded 
from the kingdom here? Is it possible that 
any can believe it to be the will of God that 
all the adults, all actual sinners, shall be 
brought into his kingdom, and the little 
innocent, helpless ones left out? If so, in 
the name of reason, of common-sense and 
of our holy Christianity, we demand why? 
for what cause? What have they done to 
deserve such treatment? Will it be said, 
" They are unfit for the kingdom ? " If so, 
we ask, in what does their unfitness con- 
sist? Is it for anything they have done 
that they are to be excluded? Surely not; 
for they have never personally transgressed 
a single law of God ? What then ? Is it 
for what they have not done? This can not 
be; for they have never refused to obey a 
single command of which they were capa- 
ble. Is it because God, in his Holy Word, 
has excluded them? If so, and it can be 
shown, we accept the decision as final; and, 
although we are wholly unable to find a 
single other reason, and, notwithstanding 



Thy Kingdom Come, 191 

our love and tender, anxious concern for 
the well-being of our children, we bow 
submissively to the will of our Father in 
heaven, confident that whatever he orders 
is right. But we must have a "Thus saitb 
the Lord." There must be a positive pro- 
hibition, an unmistakable example or a nec- 
essary inference, before we can consent to 
close the door of the Church or kingdom 
of God against our little ones. 

This will certainly not be thought unrea- 
sonable, when it is a fact, admitted by all, 
that, by express command of God, they — 
the "little ones'" — were recognized among 
the chosen, covenant people of God, who, 
to say the least that can be said — and to 
say what will not, because it can not, be 
denied — were a type of the Church or king- 
dom of God, and the seal of the covenant 
placed upon them. Consider, too, that this 
was done for nearly two thousand years. 
Now, if for eighteen hundred years, and 
more, the chosen type of the Church of 
God, by special command, embraced infants 
and made special provision for their recog- 
nition as members, is it not reasonable, yea, 



192 Children in Christ. 

unavoidable, to conclude that the antitype 
will do the same ? Did the Lord take so 
much pains, through so many years, to 
teach his people the reverse of what he 
intended they should practice? Who can 
believe it? Who will dare affirm it, with- 
out a positive "Thus saith the Lord?" The 
thing seems almost impossible; and yet, 
strange as it may appear, this very thing 
is done by all who deny the right of church- 
membership to infants, and refuse them the 
sealing ordinance by which they should be 
recognized as " of the kingdom of God." 
For we unhesitatingly deny that any such 
authority can be found in all the New Test- 
ament Scriptures, and no one has ever pre- 
tended that any could be found in the Old. 
We still urge the question then, Why are 
they excluded? Is it because they are de- 
praved? Why, then, are they not excluded 
from heaven? Is heaven less pure than the 
kingdom of God on earth? Is that which 
is unfit for association with the militant 
Church, fit to company with the glorified 
host in heaven? Will it be said, that in 
death they are sanctified and prepared for 



Thy Kingdom Come. 193 

heaven ? We ask, How do you know ? It 
is not so said in the Scriptures. Besides, 
we are taught that preparation for heaven 
is to take place in life, not in death; "for 
there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom 
in the grave, whither thou goest." The 
death of Christ is the meritorious cause, 
and the Holy Spirit the efficient agent in 
the salvation of all ; and death is nowhere 
made the condition to any. If it be said, 
they have not repented; we answer, they 
have no cause for repentance; they have 
not sinned, and therefore have no need to 
repent; and surely they would not be better 
for having cause for repentance — for having 
sinned ! If it be said, 6i They do not believe, 
and none but believers are entitled to mem- 
bership and baptism;" we demand the proof 
of this twofold proposition. "Where is it 
said in the Bible that none but believers 
are in the kingdom and entitled to its bless- 
ings and privileges? That believers are, 
we readily grant and heartily believe; but 
where, we ask, is it said that none others 
are ? If this could be proved — which it 
never can — still we demand the proof that 
13 



194 Children in Christ. 

infants are not, in a Bible sense, believers. 
They are most certainly not disbelievers. 
Indeed, if faith is essentially prerequisite 
to citizenship in the kingdom, we fearlessly 
assert that they are believers; for "of such 
is the kingdom of God." 

It may be objected that the kingdom in 
the text quoted does not refer to the visible 
Church. If so, we reply, it makes no man- 
ner of difference whether it refers to the 
visible or to the invisible, the militant or 
the triumphant in heaven; the same con- 
clusion must follow in either case. If it 
means the visible Church, the controversy 
is at an end, the question is clearly and 
definitely settled; if it means the invisible 
or spiritual — the kingdom of grace in the 
heart — then are they entitled to believers' 
baptism, for if they have the thing signi- 
fied, it would be both unreasonable and 
unjust to deny them the sign. And if it 
means the Church in her glorified state, 
then are they most certainly entitled to 
membership here and fit subjects for bap- 
tism as a recognition of that membership; 
for the text says, "Of -such (as these are, 



Thy Kingdom Gome. 195 

not as they will be) is the kingdom. " If, 
just as they are, they are prepared for 
heaven, surely they are fit for membership 
here, and ought to be recognized as mem- 
bers. 

But it may be said that Jesus did not 
intend to say that infants are of the king- 
dom, but only that adults who are like the 
infants are. To this we reply, the infant 
is as much like the adult as the adult is like 
the infant; and if the adult is to be baptized 
because he is just like the infant, the infant 
ought to be baptized because he is just like 
the adult. If they are just alike, the same 
reason that exists in the one case, equally 
exists in the other also. But, as we have 
said, the will of God, to "be done on earth 
as it is in heaven/' must be done by all the 
inhabitants of earth; which can never be if 
none but believers are " of the kingdom," 
and infants are not believers. For, if faith 
is essential to membership, and infants have 
not faith, they are not of the kingdom; and 
if they have not faith because they are not 
capable of believing, then the capability 
must exist before faith can be exercised; 



196 Children in Christ. 

and, as unbelief, where the capability of 
faith exists, is sin, it follows that, unless 
every child, on arriving at the period of 
personal responsibility, accepts by faith the 
offer of salvation in Christ, without falling 
into sin, there will never be a time when 
there are not sinners in the world; and 
while that is the case, the will of God will 
not be done on earth as it is in heaven. 
And should they grow up in their infant 
innocency to manhood's maturity, it would 
only be to retain their infant relationship 
to God and his Church, and, of course, 
would still be out of the kingdom, and 
that without the means of entering. It 
would thus be rendered impossible for the 
will of God ever to be done by all. 

If, therefore, this prayer is ever to be 
answered fully, there is to be a time when 
there will be no antipedobaptists in the 
world. Would it not be well to inquire, 
Can that be right which can not possibly 
exist in connection with the universal reign 
of the " everlasting King," who is to " reign 
forever and ever?" If, when the millennial 
glory shall dawn upon the earth, antipedo- 



Thy Kingdom Come. 197 

baptism can not possibly be practiced, is it 
at all probable, is it even possible, that its 
practice can in any way aid in bringing it 
on? If it be said that the millennium will 
not be brought about by the conversion of 
all the wicked, but that thev will be de- 
stroyed from the earth ; we would ask, 
What will be done with the infants? Will 
they be destroyed, too? if so, for what? 
They will certainly not be sent to hell; 
and if to heaven, why ? Because they are 
unfit to dwell in the Church on earth ? 
Who will dare say it? If not destroyed, 
they must either be recognized as members 
of the Church, or grow up outside. The 
first would be an end of antipedobaptism, 
and the last would effectually defeat the 
end contemplated in the prayer. 

Again, the kingdom of God is one. There 
is not a plurality of kingdoms, no more 
than there is a plurality of kings. Indeed, 
there can not be; for a kingdom is com- 
posed of the subjects of the king, and it 
takes all the subjects to constitute the king- 
dom — less than all would be only a part of 
the kingdom ; and if it takes all to consti- 



198 Children in Christ. 

tute one, of course there can not be two, 
of the same subjects. Paul speaks of " the 
whole family in heaven and on earth;'' and 
w r e are taught in this prayer to call the King, 
" Our Father/' showing that the subjects 
are the children of the King and compose 
a part of that "one family," whose Father 
is in heaven. And our Savior himself says, 
"Many shall come from the East and from 
the West, from the North and from the 
South, and shall sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. " 
Here, centuries after Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob had been called from labor to rest, 
we are told that many shall sit with them 
in the kingdom of heaven; and it can not 
mean that part of the kingdom which lies 
beyond the river of death, for " the children 
of the kingdom shall be cast out." 

This text clearly establishes one, or both, 
of two propositions, either of which being 
established, infant membership follows un- 
avoidably, viz: the oneness of the kingdom 
in heaven and on earth, or the identity of 
the Abrahamic Church and that which ex- 



Thy Kingdom Come. 199 

ists under what is called the Christian dis- 
pensation. If the first, it being admitted 
by all that infants are in heaven, how can 
they who exclude them here claim to be 
any part of the Church of God? much less 
claim to be the only and the all of that 
Church on earth!! Would not that be to 
divide the kingdom against itself? If the 
second, they being, by express command 
of God, for nearly two thousand years rec- 
ognized as members, and having never been 
legislated out, are most certainly members 
yet. If both, which we think altogether 
probable, it would be difficult to prove that 
any organization refusing them member- 
ship is entitled to be recognized as any part 
of that kingdom. Be this as it may, it is 
demonstrably certain that when this time 
spoken of by the Psalmist (Ps. xxii. 27, 28) 
comes, and "all the ends of the world shall 
remember and turn unto the Lord, and all 
the kindreds of the nations shall worship 
before " him, no such organization can exist. 
"For the kingdom is the Lord's, and he is 
governor among the nations ;" and when 



200 



Children in Christ. 



he comes to reign in millennial glory upon 
the earth, he will see to it that the " little 
ones" are not forbidden "to come unto 
him;" for "of such is the kingdom of 
God." 



Parental Responsibility. 201 



CHAPTER XII. 

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

"Train up a child in the way he should go : and when 
he is old, he will not depart from it." — Prov. xxii. 6. 

The subject indicated in the heading of 
this chapter, is one the importance of which 
can not be overestimated. It lies at the 
foundation of all good society, and is bur- 
dened with the interest of men for time 
and for eternity. The responsibilities of 
parents are to be measured by the amount 
of influence of which they are capable, and 
the capacity for happiness or misery of those 
who may come within reach of that influ- 
ence,- directly or indirectly; together with 
the duration through which it is to reach. 

If the individual happiness of a single 
child only were involved, and that only 
through an ordinary lifetime, it would be 
impossible to estimate the responsibility of 
him whose influence is to determine the 



202 Children in Christ. 

happiness or unhappiness of that child; 
but when we consider the number to be 
reached through the one on whom the in- 
fluence is brought immediately- to bear, and 
the fact that character is made for eternity, 
the responsibility of him whose influence is 
to mold that character, is absolutely appall- 
ing. 

The influence brought to bear upon the 
child by parents is felt wherever that child 
touches society or comes in contact with 
human beings, and through his whole life. 
Every individual associate, every family, 
every community in which he lives, every 
association with which he is connected, and, 
finally, the whole country of which he is 
a citizen, feels that influence. As a child, 
a brother or sister, a husband or wife, a 
ne ; ghbor or friend, a citizen ; in any and all 
these relations he carries with him the 
character molded by the influence of his 
parents, and according as that character is 
good or bad, enhances the happiness or 
misery of others. These facts are self-evi- 
dent to every reflecting mind; and were we 
to look no farther than the present life, it 



Parental Responsibility. 203 

is certainly a subject the importance of 
which must be felt by all. The parent, by 
reason of the relation he sustains as such, 
wields a greater influence over the child 
than any other person can, and that whether 
he will or not; and that influence is of the 
same nature, and in proportion to the 
strength of his own character. These 
thoughts might be illustrated and elabo- 
rated to almost an unlimited extent; but it 
is not of influence we propose to write, but 
of responsibility — responsibility of parents. 
What is responsibility? Need we define 
the term? Rather would we say, Inquire 
within, the meaning is there. What do 
you understand by it? What is the fact 
of consciousness when you feel yourself 
responsible for anything? Did you ever 
analyze the word and take its bearings : 
Of it, self is the center, and authority on 
the one side, and duty on the other, are its 
sinews of strength. Destroy the one or 
the other and responsibility is gone. Take 
an illustration : A man signs a note as se- 
curity for the payment of a specified sum. 
The principal fails, and his security is 



204 Children in Christ. 

bound; what constitutes responsibility in 
the case? It is his duty to pay; but if 
there were no means of enforcing that duty, 
there would be no responsibility — legal re- 
sponsibility, I mean ; but when authority 
and duty meet in the able self, responsibility 
is the result. We say able self, for if there 
be no ability, there can be no responsibility. 
If duty could be supposed to exist without 
the ability to discharge it, there could be 
no responsibility; and if authority could 
be brought to bear to enforce the perform- 
ance of that which it is not the duty of 
the performer to do — and sometimes it is — 
that would not constitute responsibility, in 
the true sense of the word. 

We would not, however, be understood 
to mean that authority to enforce must, in 
every case, manifest itself in actual poioer, 
producing payment in kind up to the meas- 
ure of duty. That would be to destroy, 
not to constitute responsibility. We have 
said that duty is on one side, and authority 
on the other, of the conscious self. But 
this was said in accommodation of facts as 
they appear. In an important sense, it is 



Parental Responsibility. 205 

true; but in a yet more important and 
higher sense, duty and authority are on 
the same side, i. e. 9 duty is to the one in 
authority. If this be not so, then there is 
no such thing as authority, but only arbi- 
trary power, and he who seeks to enforce 
duty is a despot. Nay, duty is also an im- 
possibility, upon such hypothesis. 

A moment's reflection will suffice to show 
that duty is, so to speak, the rebound of 
authority, and that out of the two grows 
responsibility. Right is the true ground 
of authority, and, strictly speaking, there 
is no authority for wrong-doing; that is, 
the right to authorize wrong is lodged 
nowhere, and whenever it is done, it is 
by usurpation and upon the principle that 
" might makes right." Right, then, is or 
should be the end of all law — all govern- 
ment; and as it is always duty to do right, 
duty must always have reference to author- 
ity, to the law of right, and to that through 
the properly appointed guardians of law. 
It is by this means that rights are secured 
and protection guaranteed to all that come 
between us and the law, to the authority 



206 Children in Christ. 

of which duty binds us. In other words, 
we can do no wrong to any person or thing 
without violating the obligation with which 
duty binds us to authority. Thus we see 
that it is for violence done to itself that law 
inflicts a penalty, rather than for the injury 
resulting to another from the infraction of 
law. In this view of the subject there is 
deep significance in the old adage, " Self- 
preservation is the first law of nature;" for 
if she preserve not herself, she will not be 
able to preserve others. 

Responsibility can be predicated only of 
beings capable of volition, of free agency. 
Therefore, to force obedience to law, to 
compel the discharge of duty in every case, 
would be to destroy responsibility, as it 
would be to destroy the power of choosing 
— the will power. When we say, therefore, 
that, in order to the existence of responsi- 
bility, there must be authority to enforce 
obedience, we must be understood to mean 
that the subject of government may choose 
between doing what is required and suffer- 
ing the consequences of his disobedience. 
In proportion as the certainty of this alter- 



Parental Responsibility. 207 

native diminishes, responsibility is lessened; 
and in proportion as the sense of respon- 
sibility is lessened, disregard of law is in- 
creased. In the relations which men sus- 
tain to each other, it is often the case that 
the conduct of one affects injuriously the 
interests of others, where the law can not 
reach the case and no penalty can be in- 
flicted. In such cases, unless there is some 
authority and law above human enactment 
and beyond human enforcement, there is 
no responsibility. Indeed, if there be no 
retribution hereafter, then, if a man can 
evade the law and avoid punishment for 
his wrong-doings, he thereby destroys all 
responsibility. 

In a word, a future existence and account- 
ability to a superior Being are necessary to 
the very existence of moral character; and 
unless man is to be held responsible after 
death for the manner in which he has spent 
his time in this world, moral character, 
duty and responsibility are meaningless 
terms. Especially is this true of parental 
responsibility; for beyond a prescribed limit, 
and that in a small compass, there is no au- 



208 Children in Christ. 

thority in this life that holds man to account 
for the training of his children. 

In considering the responsibility of par- 
ents, then, we must take into the account the 
relation in which they stand to their chil- 
dren on the one hand, and to the authority 
imposing their duties on the other. We 
must then inquire what those duties are, 
and what will result from their neglect. 
Not only what will result to the children — 
for we have seen that duty is to authority 
— but also what will result to him on whom 
the responsibility rests, and to him in whom 
the right centers and by whom duty is im- 
posed. 

The relation of parents to their children 
is the nearest conceivable relation, involv- 
ing personal existence itself — the existence 
of the children; and no possible description 
of it could make it plainer or give a better 
understanding of it than the simple observa- 
tion of the fact as it appears to every man, 
and the instinctive interest, planted in the 
very consciousness of our being, which is 
felt by all parents in their offspring. Out 
of this relation alone, near and dear as it 



Parental Responsibility. 209 

is, no responsibility could arise, and by it 
no duty could be imposed. It matters not 
what interest of the children may be in- 
volved in the conduct of the parents, if no 
other party is interested, that interest can 
never evolve duty, nor impose responsibility 
upon the parents. For evidence of the 
truth of this position we might appeal to 
the judgment of every reflecting mind; but 
to help reflection, let us illustrate: In civil 
relations, i. e., man's relation to his fellows 
through the civil law, the parent is respon- 
sible to the law, through its officers, for the 
conduct of his children; but only because, 
and in so far as, the conduct of his children 
affects the interests of others. It is not 
even possible to conceive of law as taking 
cognizance of, and punishing for, an act 
that affects the interest of none but the 
actor. 

We have said that the parent is respon- 
sible to the law for the conduct of his chil- 
dren; but, strictly speaking, this is not true. 
It is true only in so far as the conduct of 
the child is the result of the conduct of the 
parent; but true in this sense up to the full 
14 



210 Children in Christ. 

measure of parental duty, on the positive 
as well as on the negative side. If, by pre- 
cept or example, he teach and influence the 
child to do wrong, and the law visit the 
penalty due to the act of the child upon 
him, it will be because he, by that teaching 
and influence, was personally guilty of its 
violation. Or if he neglect any duty in- 
volved in the proper training of the child, 
and that neglect is followed by wrong acts 
in the child that, but for the neglect, he 
would not have done, the parent is guilty 
of, and punishable for, the violation of the 
law that required the performance of that 
duty. Thus we see that, in fact, no indi- 
vidual is or can be held responsible except 
for his own personal conduct. It is because 
the parent reaches others through the child, 
that the law, in visiting its penalty, reaches 
him through the same medium. 

If there were no relation but that existing 
between parent and child, as such, there 
would be no responsibility upon the parent. 
If the child were related to some other per- 
son or power, between which and the par- 
ent no relation existed, still there would be 



Parental Responsibility. 211 

no responsibility upon the parent. Or if 
the parent were related to some other, be- 
tween whom and the child there were no 
relation, responsibility would not result. 
Besides the relation of parent and child, 
they must both be related, and alike re- 
lated, to something superior to, and which 
has a claim upon, both, and the right to 
control or give direction to their conduct. 
The rule prescribing the course of conduct 
is the law of their action, and is the ex- 
pression of the will of the party having 
the right to govern. Law is the work of 
intelligence; there can be no law without 
it. The word implies, yea, expresses intel- 
ligence. Intellect can not conceive of law 
except as the expression of will, and will 
is impossible without intellect. Obedience 
to law is yielding to the will of the lawgiver. 
If that obedience be rendered by intelligent 
beings, it must be a voluntary obedience — 
and so of disobedience — or responsibility 
would be impossible. In civil governments, 
the law is the expressed will of the rulers 
— not of the officers. 

Now, parent and child are related to 



212 Children in Christ. 

government as subjects, and, as such, owe 
obedience to the laws of the government. 
It is out of these relations, to the child on 
the one side and to the government on the 
other, that the responsibility of the parent 
to the law, with reference to the child, 
grows. If the child were not also a sub- 
ject, i. e., if the government had no right 
to the obedience of the child, and the child 
no right to the protection of the govern- 
ment, the parent would not, could not, be 
responsible to the government for the train- 
ing of the child. These relations are essen- 
tial to the existence of duty, in that direc- 
tion, and duty is a necessity where they 
exist. Perfect and continuous obedience 
to all the laws of government is the duty 
of every subject; and authority to enforce 
law is necessary to the existence of govern- 
ment. Out of these, duty and authority, 
grows responsibility. Therefore, unless man 
is related to the government of God, in this 
life, as well as to his children, parental duties 
have no higher origin than political govern- 
ment, and the responsibilities of parents are 
to be measured by the amount of punish- 



Parental Responsibility. 213 

ment inflicted by civil authority for neglect 
in the proper training of children with ref- 
erence to such government. 

If, on the other hand, man is related to 
the government of God, his duty to his 
children, with reference to that government, 
can exist only in so far as they sustain the 
same relation to the same government. It 
is because God has claims upon them — a 
right to their service — and it is their duty 
to render obedience to his law, equally with 
the parent, that it is the duty of the par- 
ents to train up their children in or under 
the government of God, teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever he has com- 
manded. It follows, therefore, that what- 
ever relation the parents sustain to God and 
his government, on the supposition that 
they are in the line of duty — are of his 
kingdom — is sustained by their children 
also, while in their moral minority; and 
that to hold them under the restraints of 
grace and prevent the severance of that re- 
lation by personal transgression, is the ob- 
ject of religious training. "It is not the 
will of your Father which is in heaven, 



214 Children- in Christ. 

that one of these little ones should perish ;" 
and it can not be his will that they should 
take the first step in that direction. They 
are his, redeemed by the precious blood of 
Christ, and entitled, by virtue of the aton- 
ing death of Jesus, to citizenship in the 
kingdom of God, and to che protection of 
of its laws — "of such is the kingdom of 
God." 

So intimate is their relationship with 
Jesus their Savior, that he says, "Whoso 
shall receive one such little child in my 
name, receiveth me." It is not the will 
of the Father that any of them should per- 
ish, and it can not therefore be his will 
that they should sin; for nothing but sin, 
personal transgression of law, can cause 
them to perish. 

Whatever course will most likely prevent 
their sinning, then, it must be the duty of 
parents to pursue. If to train them up out 
of the Church, without the sign of Divine 
ownership upon them, and w r ith the idea 
that they have the right to choose whether 
they will serve God or not, and how, be 
most likely to prevent such a result, then 



Parental Responsibility . 215 

that is the course for parents to pursue. 
But, if to recognize their relationship to 
God and his kingdom by the appointed 
sign, enroll them among the people of God 
and teach them that they are of the king- 
dom, and, therefore, have no right to sin, 
be most likely to keep them from the paths 
of the destroyer, then to neglect such a 
course is to shoulder a fearful responsi- 
bility. In a word, the duty growing out 
of the relation of parents to their children 
on the one side, and to God on the other, 
is to "bring them up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord;" and whatever is 
necessary to this end, or is best calculated 
to effect it, is a part of that duty. 

If it be asked, as often it is, " Is it possible 
to so-train children that they will not need to 
be regenerated, to be 'born of the Spirit?' " 
we answer, the question has nothing to do 
with the subject under consideration, and 
may be answered affirmatively or negative- 
ly without affecting the truth of our prop- 
osition. That they are in such a relation 
to God, through Jesus Christ, that, dying 
without actual sin, they will be taken to 



216 Children in Christ. 

heaven, no one will be bold enough to deny; 
and that death is made the condition of sal- 
vation to any, will hardly be affirmed. If 
regeneration, in the case of an adult, must 
take place before death, it must also in the 
case of an infant, and as that is the work 
of the Holy Spirit, we need give ourselves 
no concern about it. 

If, however, it be asked, "Is it possible 
for them to grow up without committing 
actual sin?'* we answer, it is. The ability 
to sin is the ability to not sin. To say that 
any act is necessitated, is to say that it is 
not sin ; and to say that it is not necessi- 
tated, is to say that it was possible to not 
do it. No man can condemn as morally 
wrong any act, whether his own or an- 
other's, which he knows it was impossible 
to avoid doing. Sin is not only a voluntary 
act, it is a voluntary act of one capable of 
knowing right from wrong. Until a child 
reaches that point in the development of 
his intellectual powers, he is incapable of 
sin. Let us suppose one to have just reach- 
ed that point. He has never sinned — never 
been capable of sin. He is now capable 



Parental Responsibility. 2YI 

of sinning, but has not sinned. The first 
temptation to sin is presented to him. Can 
any man believe it possible for him to yield 
to the temptation and sin, without, at the 
same time, believing it possible for him to 
resist the temptation and not sin? Certain- 
ly not; for when we are satisfied that he 
could not do otherwise, it is impossible to 
attach blame to the act, and sin is always 
blamable. 

Let us, then, suppose that he does not 
yield, that he resists the first temptation 
and does not sin. He is now a morally 
accountable being — no longer "an uncon- 
scious babe" — but his relation to God is 
unchanged, he is still in a saved state; the 
only difference being that before he was 
saved unconditionally, now he is personally 
accountable and complies with the condi- 
tion — he stands by faith. If a believer now, 
what was he before? His mind, or, if you 
prefer, his heart, has undergone no moral 
change — no change that affects the moral 
man; he simply has not unbelieved — has 
not fallen through unbelief. He is now a 
child "of God by faith in Christ Jesus;" 



218 Children in Christ 

what was lie before ? If there has been no 
change in his relation to God, he was cer- 
tainly a child of God before; and, if so, he 
can not now be entitled to anything per- 
taining to the relation of a child, to which 
he was not entitled then. Either, then, he 
was entitled to baptism before or he is not 
entitled to it now. Thus it is seen to be a 
logical necessity either to accept infant bap- 
tism, or to reject believer's baptism. 

If capable of resisting the first tempta- 
tion, he can resist the second, and will be 
better prepared to do so; for with the first 
victory will come an increase of strength 
— and so on through the whole battle of 
life. This is simply growth in grace, and to 
effect it, instrumentally, would be to bring 
up a child "in the nurture and admonition 
of the Lord. 5 ' If any should ask, "Is it 
ever done?" we answer, we do not know. 
We know it is possible, and that it ought 
to be done; but whether there are instances 
of it in practical life we have no means of 
ascertaining with absolute certainty, as it 
is matter of personal experience, and can 
be known only by those who have it. Per- 



Parental Responsibility. 219 

haps most men — some would say all — sin 
after they are converted, as adults; but does 
that prove that it is impossible to live with- 
out sin? If so, then Jesus does not, can 
not, " save his people from their sins." It 
is certainly not necessary that we should 
prove that a Christian may, and ought to, 
abstain from all sin — "all appearance of 
evil;" and if it is not only possible for, but 
the duty of, one who has formed sinful 
habits to overcome those evil habits by the 
grace of God, and form habits of piety, is 
it not easier to cultivate piety where there 
are no fixed habits of evil to overcome? 
Which is easier, to reform a drunken son 
upon whom the habit has grown from child- 
hood to mature manhood, or to train a child 
from infancy to detest and avoid all that 
intoxicates ? 

* What is true of drunkenness, is true of 
any and every other sin. It is easier to 
avoid the doing of any wrong thing the 
first time, than to break and conquer a 
habit formed by the repetition of it through 
a series of years. It is easier to train a 
climbing vine from the time the first ten- 



220 Children in Christ. 

drils put forth in search of a support, than 
after it has been allowed to creep upon the 
earth and twine itself about the prostrated 
rubbish by which it may be surrounded. 
So it is easier to train the thoughts and af- 
fections of a young immortal, from its first 
consciousness of dependence upon and ac- 
countability to a superior Being, to "things 
which are above," than after they have been 
allowed to twine about the groveling things 
of earth, and to strengthen with the growth 
of years. 

The idea that, by some sort of unadmit- 
ted fatality, all must sin, is far too preva- 
lent; and even among Methodists, whose 
creed excludes everything that trammels 
the will, it is almost universally admitted 
that all will sin, with the evident conviction 
that there is absolute certainty (not neces- 
sity) of it, growing out of the depravity of 
human nature. Would it not be well to 
inquire, why this certainty? Why is it that 
nearly all do sin? It is admitted that in no 
single case is sin a necessity — that every 
individual may and ought to avoid sin. 
Why is it they do not? If in any given 



Parental Responsibility. 221 

case it can be prevented, it ought to be; 
and if it ought to be, and is not, there is 
blame. To whom does it attach? That 
the individual immediately concerned — the 
sinner — is to blame, will not be denied, for 
that would be to deny that he sins; but is 
he alone to be blamed? Remember, we are 
talking about the first sin. Now, if God 
had not provided, in and through Jesus 
Christ, grace to enable the child, on arriv- 
ing at the period of accountability, to re- 
sist temptation and not sin, it would be im- 
possible for him to sin; in other words, he 
could never reach the point of accountabil- 
ity — could never be an accountable being. 
If Jesus died for the children, and there 
is such a thing as "preventing grace," un- 
less we assume that God works without 
means and instruments — which would be 
to discard the Bible and silence dll teaching 
— it follows that the parents are the instru- 
ments through whom these facts are to be 
brought to the knowledge of the children 
so soon as they are capable of receiving 
them, and by whom all available means are 
to be used to lead the minds and hearts of 



222 Children in Christ 

the children up to Christ. We can not pos- 
sibly know at what precise period in the 
age of a child accountability will begin, but 
responsibility with the parent begins with 
the relation itself; and the very uncertainty 
as to the time when the child will be liable 
to personal sin, argues the necessity of be- 
ginning at once to fortify against the attacks 
of the enemy. 

Inherent depravity would give the enemy 
decided advantage, were it not for the coun- 
teracting power of grace provided in the 
atonement by Jesus Christ. This grace is 
not only provided, but is unconditionally 
bestowed up to the time of personal ability 
to reject it or, by faith in Jesus, to make it 
available in resisting the first temptation to 
sin. Whether he will do the one or the other, 
depends largely upon the influence brought 
to bear by his heaven-appointed guardians, 
the parents. Here is responsibility! Oh! 
that it were felt and appreciated by all! 
If, in recognition of heaven's claim upon 
the child and of the duty imposed by the 
relation they sustain to God and it, they 
cause it to be brought by baptism into vis- 



Parental Responsibility. 223 

ible connection with the Church, and com- 
mit it by faith in prayer to God, being care- 
ful to keep it out of the reach of evil influ- 
ences and to set before it the example of 
holy living, they may have the satisfaction 
of seeing it grow "up in the way it should 
go," exhibiting in practical life that purity 
and holiness which are the natural out- 
growth of the inner consciousness of con- 
formity to the law of love. If they neglect 
it, the noxious weeds of sin, which are in- 
digenous to the soil of depravity, will spring 
up and deform the life of the child and 
bring sorrow to the hearts of the parents. 
The proper training of children is a means 
of grace to the parents. The desire and 
purpose to mold and fashion the life and 
character of the child after the most ap- 
proved standard of morals, will induce 
watchfulness over their own conduct, lest 
by some unguarded word or act they de- 
stroy the confidence of the child in their 
own moral integrity, and thus lose the in- 
fluence necessary to perfect success in its 
proper training; or by means of that con- 
fidence instill erroneous ideas touching the 



224 Children in Christ. 

standard of right. Uot only so, but the 
effort to lead the thoughts and affections 
of their children to the Savior, will have a 
tendency to strengthen their own faith in, 
and intensify their own love for, him. 

Whatever is possible of attainment in re- 
ligious life, it is the duty and privilege of 
every child of God to seek; and to neglect 
any means of grace ordained to this end 
is to incur the displeasure of God and to 
forfeit the degree of happiness attainable 
thereby, and, at the same time, to withhold 
from God the service which is his due. 
Thus we see that, in estimating the respon- 
sibilities of parents, we are to consider re- 
lations, the duties growing out of those 
relations, and the results following the neg- 
lect of those duties to all the parties related 
— the results to the children, to the parents, 
and to God. 

With the birth of a child begins a re- 
lation which, by its very nature, imposes 
new duties and creates new responsibilities. 
Created by God and redeemed by the blood 
of Jesus, it is the duty of man to respond 
to the claims of God upon him up to the 



Parental Responsibility. 225 

"full measure of his capacity, and in every 
relation of life." Relation imposes duty, 
and duty is measured by ability. Duty can 
not go beyond ability, nor can it stop short 
of it. Duty is oughtness of response to 
the claim of God. God has absolute right 
to, and claims the obedience of every man; 
and every man ought to respond to his 
claim by observing all the requirements of 
his law. On this response is suspended his 
own happiness. If he comply fully with 
the requirements of God, he will be per- 
fectly happy; in proportion as he fails to 
do so, he will be miserable. His capacity 
for happiness is also his capacity for suffer- 
ing. Duty is the hinge on which it turns. 
In ministering to the happiness of others, 
we enhance our own. It is the duty of 
parents to minister, as far as possible, to the 
happiness of their children; and, as the 
purest and most enduring happiness of 
which a human being is capable is found 
in conscious communion with God and fel- 
lowship with his Son, Jesus Christ, they 
are required to " bring them up in the nur- 
ture and admonition of the Lord." What- 
15 



226 Children in Christ. 

ever that means, it may, and ought to be, 
done. Dr. A. Clarke says : " Literally, 
nourish them in the discipline and instruction 
of the Lord." This is equivalent to "teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you," in the commis- 
sion, which comes after discipling and bap- 
tizing. If, therefore, it is their duty to 
" nourish them in the discipline and instruc- 
tion of the Lord,'' it is their duty to have 
them baptized and brought visibly into 
disciplinary relation with his people. A 
failure to discharge this duty is a failure to 
recognize the relations existing, and is det- 
rimental to the interests of all the parties. 
The literal rendering of Dr. Clarke, how- 
ever, we venture to suggest, would be im- 
proved by a change in the preposition : 
"Nourish them with the discipline and in- 
struction of the Lord." They are to be 
nourished with — i. e. f by means of — "the 
discipline and instruction;" not nourished 
in (into), i. e. 9 brought into "the discipline 
and instruction" by means of nourishment. 
The preposition en (ev) is never expressive 
of motion into. It expresses inness, as to 



Farental Responsibility. 227 

place or time, as already existing, or the 
instrument or means by which a thing is 
done. We would not say, a child is nour- 
ished in the breast of the mother; but with 
— by means of. A child can not be nour- 
ished (brought up) physically, until it has 
a physical existence. Neither can one be 
nourished spiritually — as a child of God — 
until he has a spiritual existence — exists as 
a child of God. Being a child of God, he 
is to be nourished with "the sincere milk 
of the word," i. e., by means of "the dis- 
cipline and instruction of the Lord." The 
children, then, as we have already seen, are 
the children of God, or they could not be 
" nourished (brought up) with the discipline 
and instruction of the Lord." 

The apostle recognizes the principle for 
which we contend, and sets forth the rela- 
tions out of which the duty he seeks to 
enforce grows. 

It is the duty of parents not only to teach 
their children what is right, what they ought 
to do or not to do, but also to see that they 
do it — to enforce obedience. Absolute obe- 
dience to moral law can not, as we have 



228 Children in Christ. 

seen, be enforced, neither by man nor by 
God. Where personal responsibility begins, 
and thenceforward, the will and the motive 
must harmonize to constitute true obedience 
in that which is outwardly expressive of 
moral character. Strictly speaking, no act 
is his who does not will it; but so far as 
the outward expression, the physical move- 
ment, is concerned, it may result from the 
will and be in strictest harmony with law 
when, for want of a proper motive in the 
agent, there is no moral obedience. It is 
because of this fact that instruction is nec- 
essary. If it were not so, where power to 
control the movements of the physical man 
exists, there would be no need of instruc- 
tion. Indeed, instruction on a moral basis 
would be impossible. As well speak of in- 
structing a mere machine — a sewing ma- 
chine, a saw-mill, or anything else. When 
we speak, therefore, of enforcing obedience, 
we must be understood to mean only that 
such measures are to be used as will induce 
the performance of the required act by him 
of whom it is required, and, at the same 
time, inculcate the principle of obedience 



Farental Responsibility. 229 

on a moral basis — of doing with a proper 
motive. 

As this principle can not be appealed to 
in early infancy, the habit of obedience must 
be cultivated by other means. The com- 
mands of the parent must be enforced by 
appeal to fear, the fear of physical pain; 
and, as intellect develops and reason begins 
to work, the mind will query, Why? The 
habit of obedience being already formed, 
the reason will be readily seen and accept- 
ed, and the motive will take a higher stand. 
From looking to the threatened punishment 
as a reason for obedience, the child now be- 
gins to consider the question of right and 
the reward of conscious innocence, and his 
obedience takes on a moral quality. He 
feels that he is being good in doing right y 
and cares nothing for the penalty attaching 
to disobedience, because his desire and pur- 
pose are to obey; and to obey because it is 
right. 

Moral obedience is practical religion. 
But as moral obedience is obedience to 
moral law; and as moral law, of necessity, 
has to do with motives; and as none but 



230 Children in Christ. 

God can know the motives; it follows that, 
if there were no God, there could be no 
moral law. And, as without a knowledge 
of the law there can be no motive to obe- 
dience, it follows that, if there be no reve- 
lation made by God to man, there can be no 
moral conduct, no moral character. Either, 
then, the Bible is of God, or there is no 
such thing as duty on a moral basis — no 
such thing as moral character. But the 
Bible is of God, and furnishes the only 
standard by which moral character can be 
measured. 

If, therefore, the question be raised, What 
am I to teach my children to do and not to 
do? the answer is, Any and everything that 
God has taught in the Bible touching moral 
duty. Obedience to parents is the sum 
of what God requires of early childhood. 
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: 
for this is right" — is the simple instruction 
to children. "Honor thy father and mother; 
which is the first commandment with prom- 
ise'' — is but another way of expressing the 
same thing, with encouragement to its per- 
formance. Now, in what are children to 



Parental Responsibility. 231 

obey their parents? and why? As to the 
first question, there is no limit, unless it be 
found in the expression, "In the Lord." 
They are to obey in all things. But to 
obey "in the Lord," whatever that may 
mean, it is evident that parents and chil- 
dren must sustain the same relation to him. 
Imagine, if you can, a parent meeting the 
requirements of God's law upon him, with 
reference to his children, while he is him- 
self out of the Church and in open rebel- 
lion against God. When you can do that, 
and not before, you will be able to under- 
stand how the same thing can be done 
while the parent is in covenant relation to 
God, and his children not. How do you 
think Abraham would have succeeded in 
commanding his children after him in the 
service of the Lord, if he had refused to 
enter into covenant with him and to take 
upon him the seal of the covenant? Or 
how, if he had taken it and refused to rec- 
ognize God's claim upon them, and their 
right to the seal of the covenant and its 
blessings? Reader, think on these things. 
If you think that Abraham could not have 



232 Children in Christ. 

succeeded in either case, would it not be 
well to consider the question with reference 
to parents and children of the present day? 
What is church-membership but a covenant 
relation to God and his people? And what 
is the seal of that covenant, if it is not bap- 
tism ? Regard church-membership as a 
covenant relation, and baptism as the seal 
of the covenant and a pledge upon our part 
to perform the duties we owe to God, and 
a sign of that which God will do for us ; 
and it will be as difficult to conceive of a 
parent meeting the requirements of God's 
law upon him, while leaving his children 
out of the Church and without baptism, 
as it is to conceive that Abraham could 
have done the same thing, and left his chil- 
dren out of the covenant and without its 
seal. 

But why are children to obey their par- 
ents in the Lord? Is it not because they 
can not comprehend and appreciate the re- 
lation they sustain to the Lord, and can not, 
therefore, be held personally responsible 
for the discharge of duties growing out of 
that relation? and therefore God has placed 



Parental Responsibility. 233 

the parents, in a sense, in his stead to the 
children, that he may hold them responsible 
for the conduct of the children? Is not 
this the reason that parents and guardians 
are, by civil authority, held responsible for 
the conduct of children? Are not parents 
representatives of the government to their 
children, in so far as they are amenable to 
the government? and only to that extent? 
If the child owes no allegiance to the gov- 
ernment, and has no rights to be protected 
by it, the parent can in no sense be respon- 
sible to the government for the conduct of 
the child. Just so in our relation to the 
government of God, the Church. If the 
child owes no allegiance to the Church, 
and has no rights to be protected by it, the 
parent is under no obligation to train it to 
the observance of the laws of the Church 
— that is, to give it moral training. It is 
only because God has equal claim upon 
both, that the parent is responsible for the 
moral training of the child. Whatever, 
therefore, it is the duty of the parent to 
do, it is his duty to teach and command the 



234 Children in Christ. 

child to do; and whatever visible sign of 
relationship to God he takes, by authority 
of God, upon himself, it is his duty to have 
placed upon the child also. 

Duty and rights go together, and are in- 
separable. You can not even think of a 
man as owing duty to any government or 
authority under which he has no rights. 
Is it his duty to obey the laws of his coun- 
try — federal, State or municipal? Is it not 
because he has the right of protection under 
and by those laws? Or, if you prefer it, 
let it be said that he has the right of protec- 
tion because he obeys. Why, then, should 
he obey ? Is it simply because by so doing 
he secures the right? If so, duty is really 
to himself; or, rather, there is no duty at 
all, but only interest. Be this as it may, it 
is certainly true that wherever duty is found, 
rights exist. It is the duty of the child to 
obey the parent; but it is equally, and as 
certainly, his right to be protected and 
cared for by the parent. You can not sep- 
arate them, not even in thought. If the 
duty extend to God, through the parent, 



Parental Responsibility. 235 

the right goes with it; the right of protec- 
tion and blessing from God, through the 
parent. If the duty is owed to God by 
the parent, and must be discharged upon 
or through the child, then the right of the 
parent with respect to the child is co-exten- 
sive with the duty. So that, if it is his 
duty, as a Christian, to inculcate Christian 
principles in and require Christian conduct 
of the child, it is his right to have the child 
brought into Christian relationship and as- 
sociation. In other words, if it is his duty 
to teach the child to be a Christian, and to 
require it to observe Christian rules, it is 
his right to bring it into the Church and 
have it recognized as a disciple (learner) of 
Christ; which can be done only by bap- 
tism. 

In short, whatever it is a man's duty to 
do, it is his duty to have his child to do. 
It is no more a man's duty to keep the 
Sabbath than it is to see that his child keeps 
it. This is true of every item in the deca- 
logue, whether to do or not to do. In a 
word, every requirement made of man, of 



236 Children in Christ. 

a moral nature, is made of his children 
through him, and it is his duty to see that 
they meet it. 2s" o parent can allow his child 
to break any one of the commandments, 
and be guiltless. This is especially true of 
Christian parents; for, in addition to the 
obligation which rests upon all and is in- 
herent in the very nature of man, he has 
solemnly pledged himself, in the vow of 
church-membership — taken in baptism — to 
the discharge of duty — to nourish his chil- 
dren with the discipline and instruction of 
the Lord. 

If it is the duty of the parent to teach 
and require of the child the observance of 
these laws, it is the child's duty to obey. 
This will not be questioned. Mow answer 
this question: Can it be the duty of any 
human being to observe all the requirements 
of religion, to obey every law of God, and 
yet not be entitled to membership in the 
Church, and to the sign of discipleship to 
him whose teachings he is expected to re- 
ceive and practice? If not, then either in- 
fants are entitled to church-membership 



Parental Responsibility. 237 

and to baptism, or they are not to be taught 
and required to keep the commandments of 
God. 

Again. If it is right to raise children 
out of the Church and without baptism, 
it can not be wrong for them, when raised, 
to stay out of the Church and remain un- 
baptized. This, it seems to me, is a self- 
evident proposition, and one that, if applied 
to anything else, would be universally ac- 
cepted. Let us try it. Can you conceive 
that, if it were right to teach and require 
a child to swear, to lie, to steal, to get drunk, 
or to do anything else, it would be wrong 
for that child, when grown up, to continue 
to do these things? The thing is impossi- 
ble. And it is equally impossible to con- 
ceive that it is right to raise a child out of 
the Church, and yet that it is wrong for 
him to stay out when he is grown. It is 
as evident as that two and two make four 
that, if it is right to raise children out of 
the Church and without baptism, it can 
never become their duty to join the Church 
and receive baptism. As certainly, then, 



238 Children in Christ. 

as it is the duty of anybody to join the 
Church, and to be baptized, just so certainly 
is it right to baptize children and raise them 
up in the Church. 

In conclusion, if we could measure the 
length of eternity, calculate the worth and 
capacity of immortal souls and the love of 
God for them, prescribe the exact limit of 
parental power, under God, in molding the 
character of the child, and appreciate fully 
the difference between the terms lost and 
saved, as applied to those for whom Christ 
died, we might then grasp the fullness of 
meaning attaching to the word responsibility 
as applied to parents. If we could tell the 
joys of the saved, describe the beauties of 
the heavenly city and the infinite delights 
of its immortal citizens, with their star- 
gemmed crowns, their harps of gold, their 
pure white robes, and, above all, the pres- 
ence-glory of the King Eternal, w T hich is the 
light of the city, we might unfold in part 
the inducements to the discharge of pa- 
rental duties. But to say nothing of these, 
the consciousness of right-doing and the 



Parental Responsibility. 239 

peace of Grod which passeth knowledge, 
and which fill the heart of every faithful 
child of God, are a present and sufficient 
reward; and ought to be sufficient to in- 
duce faithfulness upon the part of all — es- 
pecially of parents to their children. 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



U-.;. .-.- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 226 035 9 # 



5$g 
KB m SSffi 



